SCEE announced the Euro version of PlayStation 3 will use a combination of hardware and software emulation to support backward compatibility for PS2 and PS1 titles. Currently a limited range of PS2 games and 98% of all PSone games will be compatible with PS3; additional titles will be made compatible through firmware updates. The emulation approach will allow PS3 to play back PS2 and PSone titles in high resolution.

http://www.the-magicbox.com/gaming.htm

So it's not so bad in Euroland after all for backwards compatibility with the PS3. Heh, I'm a tad bit jealous that I have to play in the old standard def (firmware update possible perhaps)?

98% of PSOne games work fine out of the box, and PS2 games will be continually updated via firmware. So all around, good news for a continent filled with a lot of Sony fans.

What if God of War 2 works in high def? People were excited about this possibility on the NTSC PS3 before, but it'd be awesome if the Euro version allowed it.

"high resolution" could mean anything more than 480i, so they're probably referring to 480p, not HD.

Pics of high rez 720P Final Fantasy games are already circulating. No one ever calls 480P "high resolution". No one.

If this ends up being added to future USA ps3 revisions, I might just have to buy one. :D

The rendered shots of 720P FF was that of "Emotion Engine" running the game with firmware based software providing the scaling and AA.

joeblow: You make it sound as if Sony will only enable this on a European version. Keep in mind that if such features are available via software only mode (high doubt it), then it will also be available for the US and Japan versions as well.

They don't give any source for thier info. I'd wait for a solid bit of news before getting too excited.

Hi Def is 720P and up.

Pics of FF12 running on PS3 devkit with upcoming "emulation" FW in 1080p:

http://forums.e-mpire.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6586&d=1172242611
http://forums.e-mpire.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6587&d=1172242611
http://forums.e-mpire.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6588&d=1172242780

"high resolution" could mean anything more than 480i, so they're probably referring to 480p, not HD.

As stated numerous times, 480p is decidedly not high def, and has never been considered so.

If God of War II works in high def, that would be great.

according to some on this board, Sony likes to purposely screw over the Europeans. If this pans out, I envy them now, as eventually all PS2 games should be compatiable. Heres hoping for a U.S./Japan update...

according to some on this board, Sony likes to purposely screw over the Europeans. If this pans out, I envy them now, as eventually all PS2 games should be compatiable. Heres hoping for a U.S./Japan update...
so actually sony screwed us up!!! DARN YOU SONY, EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!!

:-)

p.s. I am sure US owners will get the same firmware as well....

so actually sony screwed us up!!! DARN YOU SONY, EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!!

:-)

p.s. I am sure US owners will get the same firmware as well....

yep this is starting to look pretty good. There were rumors that God of War II would play back in 720p...now it might really really happen!

Yeah, I wanna play Lego Star Wars in 1080p!


fuad

It is just upscaled SD/ED regardless of whether the PS3 does the scaling or the TV does it . If you really want to play Lego Starwars in 1080p you'll need a PC.

It is just upscaled SD/ED regardless of whether the PS3 does the scaling or the TV does it . If you really want to play Lego Starwars in 1080p you'll need a PC.

Yeah. Your TV already upscales it to the TV's native resolution. There's not too much to get excited about with this announcement.

Yeah. Your TV already upscales it to the TV's native resolution. There's not too much to get excited about with this announcement.If you know what FF12 normally looks like and then look at those new screenshots floating around here, well that's pretty exciting.

Can someone post the FF12 1080p images somewhere else? I don't want to register to a forum, just to see those.

Thanks in advance.

Aren't there also rumors about adding anti-aliasing?

Can someone post the FF12 1080p images somewhere else? I don't want to register to a forum, just to see those.

Thanks in advance.

I have the images on my machine if anyone knows of a quick, free image hosting site.

Thanks Ragnarok. Those shots are looking pretty good.

Hi Def is 720P and up.
As stated numerous times, 480p is decidedly not high def, and has never been considered so.
All right smartasses, learn to read. Point out where I said "hi def", "high def", or "HD" in relation to 480p. Then point out where it says "HD" in the original quote. I specifically said that in the blurb posted in the original post it says "high resolution" and NOT "HD".

No one ever calls 480P "high resolution". No one.
Oh really, try a quick google search for "high resolution 480p" and see what pops up. Apparently some "nobody" company called Toshiba uses this term to describe 480p.

Fulfilling Toshiba’s promise to provide a smooth transition from the analog to the digital era, the company’s three DTV-ready projection TVs are also equipped with built-in line doublers, which create an artifact-free, high-resolution 480p progressive scan image from any conventional interlaced video source.
There is a reason that they didn't use the term "high definition" (720p and up) and instead opted for "high resolution". It could be a poor choice of words and they're actually in for HD, or a brilliant choice of words designed to make you think it was going to be HD when it's not.

It's important to pay attention to words people, they have meanings.

It is just upscaled SD/ED regardless of whether the PS3 does the scaling or the TV does it .


No it's not.

Through emulation, the native resolution the game runs in can be modified.

Go to google and search "Bleem!" or "UltraHLE".

Bleem was a PS1 emulator on PC that ran PS1 disks at various PC resolutions. UltraHLE was a Nintendo 64 emulator that ran Mario 64 in 1600x1400.

Even the Wii Virtual Console increases the resolution of N64 games to 480p (their native resolution was something like 320x200).

A software scaler will do a much better job than the hardware inside the TV/Console.

I wish people would actually think about what they write before they write it.

The original post is premised on an absurd idea: that standard definition games will become high definition through some patch.

The textures in those old games are not, nor will they ever be, high resolution textures. If they looked bad originally, they will look bad on a HD set.

What the OP really meant to say is that the PS3 has to scale the old games to higher resolutions in order to work on higher resolution sets. This will not make them look better. In fact, they probably will look worse, as evidenced by most people's opinion of how SD tv looks scaled on ttheir HDTVs.

Not neccessarily. Also, lag may be reduced, as the TV won't be doing the scaling, the system will be.
Yes, the textures are not high resolution, but with smoothing, AA, etc, the games can be made to look better.
Those FFXII pics don't look amazing, but they look better than the game in its current form.

What the OP really meant to say is that the PS3 has to scale the old games to higher resolutions in order to work on higher resolution sets. This will not make them look better. In fact, they probably will look worse, as evidenced by most people's opinion of how SD tv looks scaled on ttheir HDTVs.

Look at the screens of FFXII. It certainly looks better.

Ragnarok: thank you for the pics.

Are those pics scaled though? The resolution is weird (800x591). Certainly looks better than PS2 output.

Anyone has the full 1080p pics? Just wanted to see how soft / blurry it is, if any.

I wish people would actually think about what they write before they write it.

The original post is premised on an absurd idea: that standard definition games will become high definition through some patch.

The textures in those old games are not, nor will they ever be, high resolution textures. If they looked bad originally, they will look bad on a HD set.

What the OP really meant to say is that the PS3 has to scale the old games to higher resolutions in order to work on higher resolution sets. This will not make them look better. In fact, they probably will look worse, as evidenced by most people's opinion of how SD tv looks scaled on ttheir HDTVs.

Um... I don't know how else to state this, but you're wrong. Just look at the pictures of Final Fantasy 12.

Or, since you didnt' do what I suggested and do a google search, here is some comparison shots of the PS1 emulator Bleem (http://www.gamesfirst.com/articles/bleemcastFAQ/comparison.asp).

Note that Bleem used actual PS1 disks, and emulated them at a higher NATIVE resolution than the actual PS1 hardware.

Yes, higher res textures would make them look even better, but how can you look at these pictures and not see how much better they look? With the increased resolution, they are much MUCH crisper, textures or no.

Also, there is NO LAG in software emulation. It doesn't exist. The lag people are referring to in this thread has to do with hardware delays in scaling the signal. If anything, the frame rate would drop if the software was not rendering the emulation fast enough, but there would be no "lag".

Ragnarok: thank you for the pics.

Are those pics scaled though? The resolution is weird (800x591). Certainly looks better than PS2 output.

Anyone has the full 1080p pics? Just wanted to see how soft / blurry it is, if any.

I have the pics in 1280x1024 but the max size of AVS attachments is 800x600.

Um... I don't know how else to state this, but you're wrong. Just look at the pictures of Final Fantasy 12.


Believe what you want to believe.

What is going on here is scaling. This is necessary because all PS1 and PS2 games are output as either 480i or 480p. Most HDTVs are fixed panels and therefore are always using the same number of pixels. The 480i or p signal has to be converted to a 720p, 1080i or 1080p signal. This will be done either by the PS3 itself or by the TV that is receiving the 480i or 480p signal.

How good the final product looks is only as good as your scaler. Given that what the PS3 appears to be doing is part in hardware and part in software, I would not expect it to do as good a job as even basic hardware scaling. You may be better off using you tv's own scaler.

I guarantee that however good it is, no one will ever confuse it with HD material, a claim that the OP makes.

Arguing about this kind of stuff is stupid.

What is going on here is scaling. This is necessary because all PS1 and PS2 games are output as either 480i or 480p.
It isn't necessary, I play PS1 games rendered in high resolution with an emulator on my HTPC. Unfortunatly it seems that console makers have no intrest in doing the same but rather just use upscaling instead.

It isn't necessary, I play PS1 games rendered in high resolution with an emulator on my HTPC. Unfortunatly it seems that console makers have no intrest in doing the same but rather just use upscaling instead.


I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Don't you understand that when you are playing on an emulator on your HTPC that there is scaling going on?

All that is happening is scaling, the same thing your TV will do if you send it something other than it's native resolution. There isn't anything magical going on that creates new detail where none had previously existed.

Based on the little I have heard about the ability of the PS3 to scale DVD's, I would assume you will be better off letting your TV scale the image for you. So you should probably try to run the PS3 at 480i in those instances, and let your television upconvert it for you. But that is just my speculation.

A high quality up conversion DVD player like the oppo, looks much much better than letting your TV do it, so no, this isn't the same as just letting your TV do it.

A high quality up conversion DVD player like the oppo, looks much much better than letting your TV do it, so no, this isn't the same as just letting your TV do it.

Try it both ways. See which is better. Some TVs will do a better job. Some won't

A high quality up conversion DVD player like the oppo, looks much much better than letting your TV do it, so no, this isn't the same as just letting your TV do it.

That depends on your TV's scaler.

The oppo scaler is fundementally the same as the one in your TV, although it may be a better brand than the one in your TV. But it is the same basic part doing the same basic function. There's nothing magical about it.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Don't you understand that when you are playing on an emulator on your HTPC that there is scaling going on?
I am saying that when I set the emulator to double/quadruple the internal X and Y resolutions, it is actually rendering the game with 4/8 times the pixels and looks much better when doing so. Don't you understand the difference between scaling rendering resolution?

I am saying that when I set the emulator to double/quadruple the internal X and Y resolutions, it is actually rendering the game with 4/8 times the pixels and looks much better when doing so. Don't you understand the difference between scaling rendering resolution?

I guess I don't.

When you set the emulator to increase resolution, you are scaling. That is precisely what scaling is.

When I set the emulator to scale it is scaling, but when I set it to render at a higher resolution it is rendering at a higher resolution. They are two seprate functions and emulators can do either or both.

The PS3 cannot change the game's native resolution. Because of that, to play in resolutions higher than native, scaling is required. The reason the FF12 photos look better than the upscaled image you get now when you play FF12 on PS3 is because of the AA that's being done on the image by the scaling algorithm. I say algorithm because in this case (and with other PC emulators such as BLEEM) the upscaling is being done by software. Scaling through software allows the use of these post-processing techniques that cannot be done through hardware (as the PS3 is scaling right now). The drawback is that these algorithms are often very difficult to develope and require a CPU that is usually a magnitude more powerful than the hardware it's trying to emulate. Hope this helps.

Well, you are wrong...

It could be actually rendering in the higher resolution.

Rendering is NOT scaling.

The textures and the polygons and all the art assets do not change, this is true, and so it certainly won't look as good as a game designed with much higher resolution assets. But it can look better than simple "scaling".

Well, you are wrong...

It could be actually rendering in the higher resolution.

Rendering is NOT scaling.

The textures and the polygons and all the art assets do not change, this is true, and so it certainly won't look as good as a game designed with much higher resolution assets. But it can look better than simple "scaling".

Rendering is NOT scaling and because the assets are not changed, increasing the rendering resolution is not possible. If that were the case then there would be no Blu-Ray and no HD-DVD, we would simply use existing DVD players to render a 480i image in 1080p.

But of course we all know that the best we can do with a 480i image is to upscale it to 1080i. We would NEED true 1080p assets to render a true 1080p image.

Sorry buddy, your ignorance is showing with your inability to discern upscaling for rendering.

You are simply wrong, what more does anyone need to say?

When I set the emulator to scale it is scaling, but when I set it to render at a higher resolution it is rendering at a higher resolution. They are two seprate functions and emulators can do either or both.

You are describing scaling. The only difference is the time when the scaling takes place.

One is scaling the textures before they are rendered, the other is scaling them after.

In either case, you are just scaling.

In neither case can you manufacture detail that isn't there.

But of course we all know that the best we can do with a 480i image is to upscale it to 1080i. We would NEED true 1080p assets to render a true 1080p image.

Sorry buddy, your ignorance is showing with your inability to discern upscaling for rendering.

I think you are confusing displaying images (still and moving) with 3d computer graphics.

Outputting a 3D video game image to a monitor or TV has very little to do with movies or photos. The DVD comparison is invalid.

Rendering is NOT scaling and because the assets are not changed, increasing the rendering resolution is not possible. If that were the case then there would be no Blu-Ray and no HD-DVD, we would simply use existing DVD players to render a 480i image in 1080p.

But of course we all know that the best we can do with a 480i image is to upscale it to 1080i. We would NEED true 1080p assets to render a true 1080p image.

Sorry buddy, your ignorance is showing with your inability to discern upscaling for rendering.
He is right, you are way off. Movies are basicly just a collection of full frame photographs stored on a DVD or HD formate disk at a given resolution, they aren't being rendered by the playback device in anywhere the same sense as a 3D game is and assets are not resolution specific.

You are describing scaling. The only difference is the time when the scaling takes place.

One is scaling the textures before they are rendered, the other is scaling them after.

In either case, you are just scaling.

In neither case can you manufacture detail that isn't there.
No, I'm talking about rendering resolution, not texture scaling. I went ahead made some example pics for those who don't understand the difference. First here is a shot of Twisted Metal running at it's default resolution and simply upscaled by the emulator:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=76485&stc=1

Now, here is what it looks like with both the horizontal and vertical rendering resolutions doubled:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=76486&stc=1

Same assets in both shots, but the higher rendering resolution reveals notably more detail and reduces the size of the jaggies.

I think you are confusing displaying images (still and moving) with 3d computer graphics.

Outputting a 3D video game image to a monitor or TV has very little to do with movies or photos. The DVD comparison is invalid.
He is right, you are way off. Movies are basicly just a collection of full frame photographs stored on a DVD or HD formate disk at a given resolution, they aren't being rendered by the playback device in anywhere the same sense as a 3D game is and assets are not resolution specific.

The explanation to you on why it's EXACTLY the same is just going to take me to much time and I'm not in the lecturing mood.

The explanation to you on why it's EXACTLY the same is just going to take me to much time and I'm not in the lecturing mood.

Could be 40 pages long, still wouldn't make you right, lol

The explanation to you on why it's EXACTLY the same is just going to take me to much time.

I've got the time... I would love to hear how a polygon moving in 3D space and internally rendered at a variable resolution is exactly the same as a series of pictures of that polygon captured a fixed resolution.

The explanation to you on why it's EXACTLY the same is just going to take me to much time and I'm not in the lecturing mood.
Your time would be much better spent listening to what we are saying and noteing the difference I pointed out in my example shots. Lecturing about something you obviously don't understand to people who do would be rather pointless.

I'm wavering here. The emulator people may be right on this. It seems like emulation would be more exact, since it's based on exact algorithms, where as scaling involves a bit more guessing.

I've got the time... I would love to hear how a polygon moving in 3D space and internally rendered at a variable resolution is exactly the same as a series of pictures of that polygon captured a fixed resolution.

As I said, I don't have the time and your level of knowledge hints to me that it would take quite a bit. I could recommend some courses if you would like.

As I said, I don't have the time and your level of knowledge hints to me that it would take quite a bit. I could recommend some courses if you would like.

Yes, please do. I would like to know more if I don't understand this topic correctly.

...the veiled insult, however, is unnecessary and unwelcome.

As I said, I don't have the time and your level of knowledge hints to me that it would take quite a bit. I could recommend some courses if you would like.
Yes please tell us what courses you think will misslead people into beliving that the upscaled image I posted is exactly the same as the one rendered in hgiher resolution. :D

Once again and for the last time, in both examples, you are taking something small and making it bigger. This is scaling. In "rendering" you are making the content larger before it has been fully completed to form a scene. In the scaling example, you are taking a fully formed scene and making it larger.

Both processes are technically scaling and I think you all know and understand that there is no difference in what is going on.

The fact that one emulator appears to do a better job of "rendering" (scaling components of an image before they are completed) as opposed to "scaling" (taking complete output and making it larger) means absolutely nothing.

There is nothing inherently better about either process that I can think of. Either is only as good as the programing or engineering that went into it.

It is clear that if Sony no longer includes the emotion engine on the PS3 that it will have to find a software way to reporduce what that chip did. This is called an emulator. In addition, either the emulator, or some other software/hardware hybrid will have to output to high def resolutions. These systems could be good or they could be bad. Part of what might make them good or bad is how well they can scale 480 images to higher resolutions.

At the end of the day, I guarantee that no one will mistake any of this for true HD materialm (which is the ridiculous claim that the OP made).

I will stop here because I have nothing more to add.

You two might be correct if we were talking about 2D games, strictly rendered with sprites and other 2D drawings, with finite resolution. (Of which there are some for PS/PS2)....

But with 3D rendering you are starting with polygons, and polygons by definition have infinite resolution. If you RENDER them in a higher raster-resolution, you create detail that isn't there when rendered at lower resolution (or, at best, is fudged with anti-aliasing and filters when rendered at lower resolution).

Of course nobody really knows if the PS3 emulation DOES this... but at least it could be possible.

Once again and for the last time, in both examples, you are taking something small and making it bigger. This is scaling. In "rendering" you are making the content larger before it has been fully completed to form a scene. In the scaling example, you are taking a fully formed scene and making it larger.

Both processes are technically scaling and I think you all know and understand that there is no difference in what is going on.

The fact that one emulator appears to do a better job of "rendering" (scaling components of an image before they are completed) as opposed to "scaling" (taking complete output and making it larger) means absolutely nothing.

There is nothing inherently better about either process that I can think of. Either is only as good as the programing or engineering that went into it.

It is clear that if Sony no longer includes the emotion engine on the PS3 that it will have to find a software way to reporduce what that chip did. This is called an emulator. In addition, either the emulator, or some other software/hardware hybrid will have to output to high def resolutions. These systems could be good or they could be bad. Part of what might make them good or bad is how well they can scale 480 images to higher resolutions.

At the end of the day, I guarantee that no one will mistake any of this for true HD materialm (which is the ridiculous claim that the OP made).

I will stop here because I have nothing more to add.


FOR THE LOVE.

It is NOT SCALING!!!!!!!! stop using that word.... just stop it!!!!!!

I can run Halflife 2 on my PC at 1280x1024.

or

I can run Halflife 2 on my PC at 1600x1200.

When I make these changes to my PC resolution, there is NO SCALING HAPPENING. The native resolution that the game is rendered in is changeing.

A software emulator is capable of doing the same thing! IT DOES NOT SCALE, IT CHANGES THE NATIVE RESOLUTION. The pixels it uses to draw its lines gets SMALLER... hence, things look CRISPER.

A hardware SCALER on the other hand, like the one in the Xbox 360 is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

I'm done with this arguement. If you want, believe whatever you want, but when this functionality gets rolled out on the PS3, I dare you to do a side by side of a PS2 game, and the same game being emulated on the PS3. If, at that point, you can go on lying to yourself, more power to you.

You two might be correct if we were talking about 2D games, strictly rendered with sprites and other 2D drawings, with finite resolution. (Of which there are some for PS/PS2)....

But with 3D rendering you are starting with polygons, and polygons by definition have infinite resolution. If you RENDER them in a higher raster-resolution, you create detail that isn't there when rendered at lower resolution (or, at best, is fudged with anti-aliasing and filters when rendered at lower resolution).

Of course nobody really knows if the PS3 emulation DOES this... but at least it could be possible.

Well put, thank you Walk.

And I agree... just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it will happen. I'm skeptical, yet hopeful.

In "rendering" you are making the content larger before it has been fully completed to form a scene. In the scaling example, you are taking a fully formed scene and making it larger.

Both processes are technically scaling and I think you all know and understand that there is no difference in what is going on.

[I think there may be a difference in what is going on. I think a emulator may be more precise than a scaler, because a scaler has to estimate what the new and additional information on the screen should be, while an emulator can define exactly what the new and additional information should be.

The fact that one emulator appears to do a better job of "rendering" (scaling components of an image before they are completed) as opposed to "scaling" (taking complete output and making it larger) means absolutely nothing.

Well, it means it does a better job. It presents a cleaner image, and that is more than absolutely nothing.


No one hates to admit they're wrong more than me, but it looks like we were wrong. Or at least I was.

I wish people would actually think about what they write before they write it.Unfortunately, when you live in a glass house that is AVS, the same thing applies to a statement like yours.

Aside from the aforementioned Bleem emulation, you can currently get the benefits of 720p output on Xbox Doom 3 when you play it on the 360. Despite the fact that the assets (models, textures, and effects) are exactly the same, the game looks much, much better played via 360 emulation. Because of the better resolution, the aliasing is reduced dramatically -- which allows you to make out more distant details with ease. It doesn't quite have the razzle-dazzle of Prey (running on the iD engine), but it's rather exciting to see the improvement.

The textures in those old games are not, nor will they ever be, high resolution textures. If they looked bad originally, they will look bad on a HD set.Conversely, if they looked good in SD, they'll look even better in HD. This can potentially be a great silver lining for playing PS2 games on a PS3, and is indeed something to look forward to and be excited about.

The fact that one emulator appears to do a better job of "rendering" (scaling components of an image before they are completed) as opposed to "scaling" (taking complete output and making it larger) means absolutely nothing.

It is the same emulator, I simply adjusted the rendering resolution.

I uploaded some higher resolution shots to better illustrate the difference. First, Twisted Metal at the standard Playstation rendering resolution, looking much the same as it will on the PS3 when upscaling is enabled:

http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/psxorig.jpg

Now Twisted Metal rendered at 8 times the resolution, which is what it would look like if the PS3 emulator could render the games in HD:

http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/psxhd.jpg

Now does that help you grasp the difference between rendering resolution and scaling?


Aside from the aforementioned Bleem emulation, you can currently get the benefits of 720p output on Xbox Doom 3 when you play it on the 360. Despite the fact that the assets (models, textures, and effects) are exactly the same, the game looks much, much better played via 360 emulation. Because of the better resolution, the aliasing is reduced dramatically -- which allows you to make out more distant details with ease. It doesn't quite have the razzle-dazzle of Prey (running on the iD engine), but it's rather exciting to see the improvement.

The 360 doesn't render BC games at a higher resolution, the hardware scaler handles the resolution change. The 360 does add 4x anti-aliasing to BC games though, which provides the improvement you note.

Also, I'm not useing Bleem for those Twisted Metal shots, but rather ePSXe with Pete's OpenGL plugin.


Conversely, if they looked good in SD, they'll look even better in HD. This can potentially be a great silver lining for playing PS2 games on a PS3, and is indeed something to look forward to and be excited about.
Sony hasn't said anything about rendering in HD though, or even adding AA like the 360 does. Rather it seems they will only be upscaling, which really isn't anything to get excited about.

Sony hasn't said anything about rendering in HD though, or even adding AA like the 360 does. Rather it seems they will only be upscaling, which really isn't anything to get excited about.Sony hasn't anything about it at all yet, that I know of. It's still just a rumour based on some screenshots. I'm still skeptical anything will actually be done but those full-size pictures of FF12 did look like it was being rendered in a higher resolution. Unfortunately I can't find the full size versions anymore.

Did you guys see this interview? Notice how Sony completely ignores the 3.rd question, and blurbs our some BS regarding the PS3.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157529

C'mon people, of course there's a difference between scaling and rendering at a higher resolution.

Everyone's already given great examples, but here's my own.

Scaling is like taking a picture at 640 x 480 and blowing it up to 1600 x 1200.
Ugly.

Rendering at the higher resolution is like taking a picture at 1600x1200.
Glorious.

The 360 scaler just makes it bigger, but does apply AA to clean it up.

Unknown what the PS3 can do, if anything.

I hope they allow our first gen PS3s to use the software emulation even if we already have the PS2 hardware inside of it and all. Should be no problem right?

I have the images on my machine if anyone knows of a quick, free image hosting site.

www.imageshack.com

I wish to add that there is a difference between the two, which one ends up the ps3 is up for grabs.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=76384

Looking past the scaling those look like 640x480 jaggies to me.

Oh, and:

The 360 scaler just makes it bigger, but does apply AA to clean it up.

Scalers can't add AA, that has do be done during rendering.

I'm wavering here. The emulator people may be right on this. It seems like emulation would be more exact, since it's based on exact algorithms, where as scaling involves a bit more guessing.

"exact algorithms", "more guessing"

Huh, guys, it's time to stop believing in magic diet pills, snake oil, instant weight loss, penis patches and other get-rich-quick schemes...

The rendering of a game is so tied into the original code of a game, it's not going to change much.

Let's take a character made of 2,000 polygons, you may render it into a larger buffer, but in the end, it remains a 2,000-polygon character.
Making it a 10,000-polygon character would require new assets, potentially new animations, etc.

And upscaling won't make miracles either. A 2,000-polygon character remains a 2,000-polygon character, no matter what. In order to avoid magnifying the faults and to hide the noise introduced by upscaling, you are bound to use some form of AA or localized blur, which often causes color shifts, loss of detail and overall softening.

So, in short, the best you should expect is the same difference you can see between 480i and 480p in PS2 games that support 480p.

Let's take a character made of 2,000 polygons, you may render it into a larger buffer, but in the end, it remains a 2,000-polygon character.
Making it a 10,000-polygon character would require new assets, potentially new animations, etc.It won't require any new assets though. Simply rendering the same models in a higher resolution will reduce aliasing, which is the PS2's main weakness. Just look at the 2 pictures from Twisted Metal that Kylebisme has posted here to see the dramatic difference.

Whether any of this is possible on the PS3 though I have no idea.

Here's the full size version of those pictures. The first one is pretty impressive to me, the second not as much.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps3/highrestk5.jpg


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps3/highres3jw4.jpg

Let's take a character made of 2,000 polygons, you may render it into a larger buffer, but in the end, it remains a 2,000-polygon character.
Making it a 10,000-polygon character would require new assets, potentially new animations, etc.You don't have to make it a 10,000 polygon character. Scaling won't make for a noticeable improvement, but rendering at a higher resolution will make the 2K poly character look better. This is a fact you can verify yourself on any PC game: run HL2 or WoW at 800x600, then switch to 1280x960, and you can see the improvement on the same assets.

No "official" announcements have been made about any software or software/hardware BC enhancements.

This is an argument based on a misinformed magic box article.

While we all hope for it, on Sonys track record, I dont expect to see it till xmas, if at all.

C'mon people, of course there's a difference between scaling and rendering at a higher resolution.

Everyone's already given great examples, but here's my own.

Scaling is like taking a picture at 640 x 480 and blowing it up to 1600 x 1200.
Ugly.

Rendering at the higher resolution is like taking a picture at 1600x1200.
Glorious.

The 360 scaler just makes it bigger, but does apply AA to clean it up.

Unknown what the PS3 can do, if anything.
thats because everyone here thinks scaling is magic and that there is no difference between upscaled and true resolution. Just check anywhere on the forums, and there will be tons of people claiming how you cant see an difference between upscaled image to 1080p from 720p, and true 1080p.

Of course you can... but maybe not if you are sitting 12ft away from 40" TV.

Yet people will swear to death that their TV upscales perfectly, which is nonsense.

You don't have to make it a 10,000 polygon character. Scaling won't make for a noticeable improvement, but rendering at a higher resolution will make the 2K poly character look better. This is a fact you can verify yourself on any PC game: run HL2 or WoW at 800x600, then switch to 1280x960, and you can see the improvement on the same assets.

Yeah, as I said, the difference will be of the same order as the difference between 480i and 480p. And actually, that same 2,000-polygon character rendered in a larger buffer and scaled to cover a 37+ inch display is likely to look more blocky in the end.

My only point is this: There is no magic bullet. Otherwise, Xbox 360 would be an Xbox with a scaler and PS3 would be a PS2 with a scaler.

"exact algorithms", "more guessing"

Huh, guys, it's time to stop believing in magic diet pills, snake oil, instant weight loss, penis patches and other get-rich-quick schemes...

The rendering of a game is so tied into the original code of a game, it's not going to change much.
The rendering resolution is set in the orignal code of the game, but it is easy to change that with an emulator, as should be obvious by the shots I posted showing exactly that.


Yeah, as I said, the difference will be of the same order as the difference between 480i and 480p. And actually, that same 2,000-polygon character rendered in a larger buffer and scaled to cover a 37+ inch display is likely to look more blocky in the end.
Could you please point out what you think looks "more blocky" in my example shots?


My only point is this: There is no magic bullet. Otherwise, Xbox 360 would be an Xbox with a scaler and PS3 would be a PS2 with a scaler.
A Xbox with a scaler or a PS2 with a scaler would never be able to povide the detail that comes from rendering games at a higher resolution, while an emulator on more powerfull hardware can be made to do exactly that.

My only point is this: There is no magic bullet. Otherwise, Xbox 360 would be an Xbox with a scaler and PS3 would be a PS2 with a scaler.Your point is well taken. I appreciate the clarification.

getting a 480 game into a 720 game would make some of the jaggiez less noticable if rendered... The biggest problem in my opinion would be the crappy textures that would be used in 720 mode.

Who knows, let them do it, then we can complain. lol

I don't see why try so hard to make people understand something that should be inherently simple. The principle is not at all different than changing resolutions in a computer game. Go play any game you want in full screen at a given resolution and then change it to a higher one, it's should be quite obvious which one looks better. No magical creation of game assets or anything, simply using more pixels to draw the triangles that make up for the 3D geometry and that allows for a much smoother image. Playing at a high resolution requires much more performance juice than playing at a lower one and upscaling (which is simply increasing the apparent size of the pixels or using approximation to fill the screen in some cases).

most ps2/ps don't support widescreen... if putting them in 720p mode, don't they have to black out some area?

Wouldn't bother me. As long as my PS1 games like FF8 look better than it does on my HDTV, then I'm happy. I REALLY want to play the game again, but it just looks so damn ugly and I don't have a SDTV. I pray to god something special happens with this month's firmware.

Believe what you want to believe.

What is going on here is scaling. This is necessary because all PS1 and PS2 games are output as either 480i or 480p. Most HDTVs are fixed panels and therefore are always using the same number of pixels. The 480i or p signal has to be converted to a 720p, 1080i or 1080p signal. This will be done either by the PS3 itself or by the TV that is receiving the 480i or 480p signal.

How good the final product looks is only as good as your scaler. Given that what the PS3 appears to be doing is part in hardware and part in software, I would not expect it to do as good a job as even basic hardware scaling. You may be better off using you tv's own scaler.

I guarantee that however good it is, no one will ever confuse it with HD material, a claim that the OP makes.

Arguing about this kind of stuff is stupid.

It's not just scaling.

The new renderer can be generating additional data for the final frame buffer.

1. If I ask windows to draw a line from A to B on a low res display, it will do so. I can then take that frame, and upscale it to a high res display antialiased.

2 If I ask Windows to do the same natively on a high res display, it will make use of the extra pixels and draw a smoother line with more pixels.

Compare 1 and 2 and #2 will look better because it isn't scaling a lower res image.

No the PS2 games won't look as good as HD, but it can theoretically look better than SD because the graphics engine can rerender many operations toward the higher native res, which is better than upsampling the frame buffer. The renderer can take advantage of the higher precision coordinate space to render operations. Textures will still be low res, but lighting operations, pixel shaders, and vector operations can be smoother and higher res.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just Graphics Programming 101 and I believe that you are wrong. The new emulation software is more than just a scaler for the frame buffer. My career in 3D graphics programmer is over and stale, but anybody who knows a bit about rendering graphics should understand that it is definitely possible to take existing game assets, rewrite the 3D renderer and have a higher resolution image. I know a guy who was thinking of doing that for Mario Kart on the SNES emulator as a pet project (this same guy is a professional game developer). It's such a simple concept but the effort is higher than straight emulation, but I'm glad Sony is going the extra mile

Any updates on the rumored PS3 software emulator. I'd love to experience PS1 and PS2 games with souped up emulation effects.

And as for the arguement about scaling etc in this thread. An emulator does ALOT more then simple scaling. Filters, increasing resolution, etc etc. Download ePSXe and get it configured properly and test out some PS1 games. They can look great.

Additionally, here's the homepage for the only current PS2 emulator right now. Its early in development yet and you need a high end system to run it with all the candy turned out, but you can clearly see how great it makes PS2 games look by adding AA and other features.

http://www.pcsx2.net/

Finally, since this debate was mostly about 3d images and polygons. I should point out that there are filters present in most emulators that can enchance the look of 2d sprites. It's a simple feature that most emulators support. Its called Super 2xSaI.

Here's some info on it to explain how it works and how it looks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2xSaI

http://elektron.its.tudelft.nl/~dalikifa/

Super Mario 3 Example

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/21/2xsai-compare.png

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever the rumored PS3 software emulation couldnt include something like this into its emulator to increase the looks of how 2d games look on ANY display.

As stated numerous times, 480p is decidedly not high def, and has never been considered so.

If God of War II works in high def, that would be great.


Well to be fair a few years ago Fox used to say they had High Defintion and even had a intro saying this when in fact the channel only dispalyed 480p, they didn't have any content in High Definition..

I'm didn't see it mentioned, but will the PS3 keep the image in it's original aspect ratio when upscaling? Since most of the games are 4:3, if it doesn't...

Hopefully if the emulation software comes to pass, it will fix the underscan issues on PS2 games.