Question about motion blur?

[brett_day]

well motion blur is to do with an issue that LCD tv's suffer with. Motion blur is caused when an LCD tv cannot keep up with the motion of the picture on the tv, the picture will blur......motion blur has nothing to do with the graphical capabilities of either the 360 or the ps3

now what he might be talking about is rendering capabilities......it has been noted that the 360 is better at rendering graphics than the ps3 due to some limitations of the rsx graphics chip the ps3 uses. in side by side comparisons some versions of the same game on the 360 looks a little sharper than the ps3 version...the ps3 version might look a little soft in comparison. No tricks are being used thats for sure though.

i think that when developers, coders and programmers learn how to fully exploit the graphical capabilities of the PS3 the 360 will run and hide in a corner, will be sucking is proverbial thumb and will be showing the RROD!

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by brett_day

well motion blur is to do with an issue that LCD tv's suffer with. Motion blur is caused when an LCD tv cannot keep up with the motion of the picture on the tv, the picture will blur......motion blur has nothing to do with the graphical capabilities of either the 360 or the ps3

now what he might be talking about is rendering capabilities......it has been noted that the 360 is better at rendering graphics than the ps3 due to some limitations of the rsx graphics chip the ps3 uses. in side by side comparisons some versions of the same game on the 360 looks a little sharper than the ps3 version...the ps3 version might look a little soft in comparison. No tricks are being used thats for sure though.

i think that when developers, coders and programmers learn how to fully exploit the graphical capabilities of the PS3 the 360 will run and hide in a corner, will be sucking is proverbial thumb and will be showing the RROD!

He is talking about motion blur associated with games like Killzone 2, not when the LCD refresh rate is low and causes artifacts and such.

Anyway: It is clearly an argument you can not win. You are obviously talking to a fanboy (no offense, we all have a fanboy friend), and therefore fact and reason will not matter and get lost in the dialogue as there is no answer that will convince a fanboy the other product is good.

That said, ask him why this trick was not used (at least not that I recall) on the PS, PS2, Xbox or dreamcast. They all could have used it to hide whatever he thinks they are hiding.

[AM-MAN]

Show him Uncharted

[androvsky]

Lemme guess, he's talking about GTA 4 right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but motion blur takes more resources on the GPU side, which is where the PS3 is weakest. If that's being done to hide framerate issues, that tells me the CPU is the limiting factor. Since the PS3 has more than double the CPU power of the 360 it sounds like Rockstar didn't port to the Cell very well. They probably did what a lot of cross-platform developers did, just run everything on the one PowerPC core and ignore the other 85% of the PS3's computing power.

I think the general consensus at this point is the GPU in the 360 is a bit faster than the RSX, but the PS3's almost obscene amount of extra CPU can more than make up for it. The problem is that PC/360 developers aren't used to using the CPU for graphics so porting to the PS3 gives them trouble (or requires a lot of rewriting of the engine).

I think between Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 there's not much argument left over which system can do more. It was amusing watching the 360 fanboys on neogaf try to explain that a 360 game could look as good as Killzone 2 if only Microsoft could put as much money as Sony did into one game. Yeah, poor Microsoft, can't afford a good-looking game...

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by androvsky

Lemme guess, he's talking about GTA 4 right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but motion blur takes more resources on the GPU side, which is where the PS3 is weakest. If that's being done to hide framerate issues, that tells me the CPU is the limiting factor. Since the PS3 has more than double the CPU power of the 360 it sounds like Rockstar didn't port to the Cell very well. They probably did what a lot of cross-platform developers did, just run everything on the one PowerPC core and ignore the other 85% of the PS3's computing power.

I think the general consensus at this point is the GPU in the 360 is a bit faster than the RSX, but the PS3's almost obscene amount of extra CPU can more than make up for it. The problem is that PC/360 developers aren't used to using the CPU for graphics so porting to the PS3 gives them trouble (or requires a lot of rewriting of the engine).

I think between Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 there's not much argument left over which system can do more. It was amusing watching the 360 fanboys on neogaf try to explain that a 360 game could look as good as Killzone 2 if only Microsoft could put as much money as Sony did into one game. Yeah, poor Microsoft, can't afford a good-looking game...

Killzone 2 - €27m
Halo 3 - $71m
Uncharted 2 - $16.5m (not too certain about this one as it's quite old and the game isn't finished)

Production budgets only, no promotional costs are included in these figures...

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Killzone 2 - €27m
Halo 3 - $71m
Uncharted 2 - $16.5m (not too certain about this one as it's quite old and the game isn't finished)

Production budgets only, no promotional costs are included in these figures...

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune supposedly cost around $20m which is also the target for U2. Bearing in mind Drake's Fortune didn't have a multiplayer component, but was a radically different game from Jak X/3 before it and the game engine was written from scratch, that's pretty amazing how little was spent compared to Halo 3 in a similar time-span.

It'd be difficult to expand on Uncharted 2's feature set in a way that makes Uncharted 3 take another two years so I wonder if they'll develop something extra on the side like Jak X with Jak 3.

[talak]

Since when has motion blur been a bad thing. To see something moving at speed without motion blur will look unnatural as your brain expects to see blurring. It like watching sport filmed at the higher camera rate to remove the motion blur caused by the normal 25 - 30 frames per second, when you watch it you mind in constantly telling you something it wrong with this image and it will give some people a serious headache.

Also motion blur is used in CGI to enhance not to hide. It is physically added to CGI movies to make them look more natural and pleasing to the eye, and take one hell of an amount of processing power and skill to do properly.

But as its been stated before in this thread if you are dealing with a fanboy no end of reasoning will ever get them to see anything but there side of the argument. Give up and enjoy your games, hell my favourite games at the moment look like PS2 games, actually one is a PS2 game