Well, first things first. The face is not to good to be from the X-Box. I've seen similar with some new engines using current video cards. The processor has very little to do with the quality of the rendering today, and thus the quality of still frames relies on the video card, which will be a next generation card.
It being faked. It is only suspect, though there is a high chance of it. The white edges are highly suspicious, however, they do not mean there is a 100% probabilities of being pasted in. The video card is probably not at fault, but potentially the software is. Perhaps at high angles the renderer makes a few mistakes. Not likely, but not dismissable.
However, my intention (though it didn't quite come through) was not to dispute the proof of fraud, but was to point out that the fraud probably wasn't so bad. My guess is that the image was copied from another screen shot, and pasted onto a new background so it would look more interesting(the game is set in snow, plenty of chances for a white background). The quality of the face in that particular shot requires skill on the part of the artist, not the hardware. Hardware today can easily do that (I work in 3D graphics). The tough parts are the photoshop quality lens flare, and the reflection. The lens flare is forgivable, because when it is animated, nobody pays attention to the quality. If the person were say rendered in 3DS MAX and then pasted in, that would be unforgivable. However, I don't see any evidence of that, and hardware today can do what they posted. I'm pretty sure the playstation 2 can do a very similar job of simulating that screenshot. The polygon count is extremely low (people tend to be low poly, the "realness" comes from the material/texture. This is always the case, even in Squaresoft's Final Fantasy movie. The people wouldn't look real at all if it wasn't for their excellent skin shader, even though they have more polygons in the eyebrows than Microsoft has in that scene). The shading is good as well, but nothing that can't be done today.
Nobody has given me any evidence that Microsoft has done anything totally immoral. From what has been said, it only seems that Microsoft is cutting up screen shots and putting them together to make them more interesting. All the new screen shots are of gameplay, where you place the camera to enable the player to play the game. It is not the optimal position to make pretty screenshots. Nobody has said that the rendered the images on anything other than the X-box. It has only been implied, and very weakly at that.
Oh, and a bit on video card history. nVidia did not become king because it had the highest polygon/framerate capacity. Video cards have surpassed that polygon capacity that games need have had for quite some time. Voodoo in it's day was polygon/framerate king. However, nobody used that many polygons because adding more polygons didn't help make it look better, and when you have more polygons, the. nVidia added features and made the output look better. Besides, polygons are more of a burden on the proc than it is on the video card.
The capacity of computing today makes that screenshot very possible. The demo done by Blur studios for the X-Box had more polygons than that. Go to blur.com. The demo has more polygons, more lights, and looks better. Don't blame the hardware for the bad images, blame the programmers this time.
Why was this the worst offense, please tell me. If they created character in some outside 3D program, they must have been pretty lazy to leave in those edges. If you put the old image as a background, and render to it, you end up with much better anti-aliasing for all the programs that I am aware of. Besides, I don't think it has been adaquetely proven that the character was pasted on anyway. The only evidence that I have seen was the jagged edges. Photoshop will produce better edges if you know what you are doing. It's much harder to get rid of those edges in a real time renderer than it is with production software. It feels more like evidence that the character was rendered on top of the scene as opposed to pasted in. Remember, we are analyzing a 3D rendering, not a real photo. I see no problem unless it can be proven that the person was rendered on some hardware other than the X-box, which I have heard nothing about.
Hmm, the stuff alegedly doctored doesn't seem to be worth doctoring. Lens flares are quick and dirty. The only reason it takes so long in photoshop is because they have many settings, plus it has to look real good pixel per pixel. Most games use pre made lens flares, and just paste them on in the correct position. Lens flares are just simulated. I don't know of any professional 3D graphic studios that use calculated lens flares as opposed to just illusions.
Next, the claims of the person being pasted on. The person isn't an extra strain on the system compared to what they have already shown is capable of the X-Box. All the existing systems can easily handle a person and background, it really isn't that much. Also, perhaps the aliasing between the person and the background is a fault in the system itself, not proof of doctoring. Antialiasing is not very easy to perfect, and different algorithims work better in different situations.
What has been claimed as doctored isn't really worth doctoring. If it was, it was just because they knew the game would eventually look like that, because what they faked just wan't implemented yet. If I was to complain about doctoring, I would be worried about the reflection in the glasses, or if the person pasted in wasn't rendered with the X-Box but say in 30 seconds on someones computer.
Now, being a 4 year veteren(or rather, this is my fourth year), if you want to be a CS, you have to make it up yourself. Most people have crappy control systems. If you want, create a slick one, or even create some automated features, such as fuzzy logic for making sure the robot doesn't tip over, or something else specific to your robot. It's only as good as an opertunity as you and your team make it to be.
Narg, quite the contradictory/biased response here. First, the first sentence is very strong here. Most programs don't even install their own DLLs, and the ones from big corperations are usually kind enough to remove them for you when you UNinstall them.
Besides, the fact that you even know that there are remant dlls suggests that you place the burden upon yourself looking for old dlls in the mess that is the system directory. It's basically harmless to let those things sit there on their own, all they do is suck up a few K of hard drive space. You don't have to deal with them unless you want to.
Next, "DLL's are a pain and a hassle even if you choose to minimze the idea." Well, if we minimize the pain and hassle, there really isn't any since pain and hassle are all defined by oneself. It's not like ecological damage, where if we ignore it the damage is still done. If you don't even notice the buzzing of flourecent lights, then they won't bother you.
Lastly, the idea(I'm only putting this in because I couldn't figure out what "minimize the idea" meant) is a good one. They make programs smaller, and programs can share the same code, resulting in smaller use of system resource. Not always good, but if they were used correctly, nobody would have a qualm with them(except for a few picky programmers).
Well, you can't sue them because it didn't cost you anything. However, I don't mind getting AOL CD's anymore, they come in the DVD style cases now. Free CD cases for Charlie's CD-Rs!
Again, mostly in my experience it's with stupid programs(like one program that downgraded my mfc42.dll, BAH!), or simply means I need a windows patch(which is something I could do without). Ah well, I was wrong about the DLLs and MACs. Yeah, DLLs do end up being a little less than efficient in the end(especially programs that use program specific DLLs), but if I wanted pure efficiency I wouldn't go with MacOS or Windows.
Winamp shows up as o% percent on my computer, so it can't be for music.
Anyway, I actually find that most people are rather impatient with computers, and that the response time of the system. While arguably this can be increase by using a better OS, most people are going to be using Windows. While it may only be one second, people have a tendency to recognize the slow down and exagerate the difference. True, it isn't worth $1000 for most people, but that's the only thing I could think of other than the majority of programs getting less efficient, and stupid web pages that use every plugin under the sun.
1.)Have you ever worked anywhere that required working with colors and shapes? What if those colors and shapes needed to look the same on every monitor in the shop? Well, that new Apple Display Connector should help.
Yeah, you can buy those too. If you are really going to need that kind of accuracy, you probably bought monitor/video card that already has this feature included(GO SGI FLAT PANEL, WOOO!). Anyway, ensuring color consistancy on all platforms has been solved a while ago.
2.)Want to add hardware? While you'll have fewer options than a Wintel user, your purchase is almost guaranteed not to conflict with any common configuration. And when you want to put it in, you open the door (no screws).
You know most PCs have screwless maintainance(well, with the case anyway. I like sun hard drive holder. in/out in/out... WWWEEEEEEEE!!!). It's all in case design, and if you don't like it, you can always get a different case(same with an apple machine too I guess)
Also, I have had very few problems dealing with hardware conflicts, especially now a days. So much in windows is handled almost transpartly by the OS now. While it still is slightly buggier than the Mac version, it also has to deal with more hardware. It's not as bad as you make it sound.
3.)Your purchase will last. I own a Power Mac 8600. I do all kinds of demanding work on it. To be fair, video is not one of them. But guess what? It's still really fast. Sure, I notice the difference during some Photoshop filters, and during sound file manipulations, but my machine was bought after the G3 came out. Let's see how those celeron boxes are doing in 4 years.
The speed increase in both platforms I believe has been very similar. What you argue is just a point of view. I used the same computer until recently for about 5 years(Windows, not a single reformat). I did basic 3D animation/modeling. If you can do it five years ago, you can still do it today on the same machine. Some people don't seem to understand that at all.
4.).DLL? what's that?
Dynamiclly Linked Library. Though I have never programmed on the MacOS, I'm pretty sure you have something similar. Anyhow, I don't really see the point of your argument. If there is a problem with DLLs it is simply a bug in the program(or in some cases the dll), not in the concept of DLLs.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first things first. The face is not to good to be from the X-Box. I've seen similar with some new engines using current video cards. The processor has very little to do with the quality of the rendering today, and thus the quality of still frames relies on the video card, which will be a next generation card. It being faked. It is only suspect, though there is a high chance of it. The white edges are highly suspicious, however, they do not mean there is a 100% probabilities of being pasted in. The video card is probably not at fault, but potentially the software is. Perhaps at high angles the renderer makes a few mistakes. Not likely, but not dismissable. However, my intention (though it didn't quite come through) was not to dispute the proof of fraud, but was to point out that the fraud probably wasn't so bad. My guess is that the image was copied from another screen shot, and pasted onto a new background so it would look more interesting(the game is set in snow, plenty of chances for a white background). The quality of the face in that particular shot requires skill on the part of the artist, not the hardware. Hardware today can easily do that (I work in 3D graphics). The tough parts are the photoshop quality lens flare, and the reflection. The lens flare is forgivable, because when it is animated, nobody pays attention to the quality. If the person were say rendered in 3DS MAX and then pasted in, that would be unforgivable. However, I don't see any evidence of that, and hardware today can do what they posted. I'm pretty sure the playstation 2 can do a very similar job of simulating that screenshot. The polygon count is extremely low (people tend to be low poly, the "realness" comes from the material/texture. This is always the case, even in Squaresoft's Final Fantasy movie. The people wouldn't look real at all if it wasn't for their excellent skin shader, even though they have more polygons in the eyebrows than Microsoft has in that scene). The shading is good as well, but nothing that can't be done today. Nobody has given me any evidence that Microsoft has done anything totally immoral. From what has been said, it only seems that Microsoft is cutting up screen shots and putting them together to make them more interesting. All the new screen shots are of gameplay, where you place the camera to enable the player to play the game. It is not the optimal position to make pretty screenshots. Nobody has said that the rendered the images on anything other than the X-box. It has only been implied, and very weakly at that. Oh, and a bit on video card history. nVidia did not become king because it had the highest polygon/framerate capacity. Video cards have surpassed that polygon capacity that games need have had for quite some time. Voodoo in it's day was polygon/framerate king. However, nobody used that many polygons because adding more polygons didn't help make it look better, and when you have more polygons, the. nVidia added features and made the output look better. Besides, polygons are more of a burden on the proc than it is on the video card. The capacity of computing today makes that screenshot very possible. The demo done by Blur studios for the X-Box had more polygons than that. Go to blur.com. The demo has more polygons, more lights, and looks better. Don't blame the hardware for the bad images, blame the programmers this time.
Why was this the worst offense, please tell me. If they created character in some outside 3D program, they must have been pretty lazy to leave in those edges. If you put the old image as a background, and render to it, you end up with much better anti-aliasing for all the programs that I am aware of. Besides, I don't think it has been adaquetely proven that the character was pasted on anyway. The only evidence that I have seen was the jagged edges. Photoshop will produce better edges if you know what you are doing. It's much harder to get rid of those edges in a real time renderer than it is with production software. It feels more like evidence that the character was rendered on top of the scene as opposed to pasted in. Remember, we are analyzing a 3D rendering, not a real photo. I see no problem unless it can be proven that the person was rendered on some hardware other than the X-box, which I have heard nothing about.
Hmm, the stuff alegedly doctored doesn't seem to be worth doctoring. Lens flares are quick and dirty. The only reason it takes so long in photoshop is because they have many settings, plus it has to look real good pixel per pixel. Most games use pre made lens flares, and just paste them on in the correct position. Lens flares are just simulated. I don't know of any professional 3D graphic studios that use calculated lens flares as opposed to just illusions. Next, the claims of the person being pasted on. The person isn't an extra strain on the system compared to what they have already shown is capable of the X-Box. All the existing systems can easily handle a person and background, it really isn't that much. Also, perhaps the aliasing between the person and the background is a fault in the system itself, not proof of doctoring. Antialiasing is not very easy to perfect, and different algorithims work better in different situations. What has been claimed as doctored isn't really worth doctoring. If it was, it was just because they knew the game would eventually look like that, because what they faked just wan't implemented yet. If I was to complain about doctoring, I would be worried about the reflection in the glasses, or if the person pasted in wasn't rendered with the X-Box but say in 30 seconds on someones computer.
Now, being a 4 year veteren(or rather, this is my fourth year), if you want to be a CS, you have to make it up yourself. Most people have crappy control systems. If you want, create a slick one, or even create some automated features, such as fuzzy logic for making sure the robot doesn't tip over, or something else specific to your robot. It's only as good as an opertunity as you and your team make it to be.
Narg, quite the contradictory/biased response here. First, the first sentence is very strong here. Most programs don't even install their own DLLs, and the ones from big corperations are usually kind enough to remove them for you when you UNinstall them. Besides, the fact that you even know that there are remant dlls suggests that you place the burden upon yourself looking for old dlls in the mess that is the system directory. It's basically harmless to let those things sit there on their own, all they do is suck up a few K of hard drive space. You don't have to deal with them unless you want to. Next, "DLL's are a pain and a hassle even if you choose to minimze the idea." Well, if we minimize the pain and hassle, there really isn't any since pain and hassle are all defined by oneself. It's not like ecological damage, where if we ignore it the damage is still done. If you don't even notice the buzzing of flourecent lights, then they won't bother you. Lastly, the idea(I'm only putting this in because I couldn't figure out what "minimize the idea" meant) is a good one. They make programs smaller, and programs can share the same code, resulting in smaller use of system resource. Not always good, but if they were used correctly, nobody would have a qualm with them(except for a few picky programmers).
Hmm, that's probably more along the lines of hard drive speed, internet connection, and other bottle necks.
Well, you can't sue them because it didn't cost you anything. However, I don't mind getting AOL CD's anymore, they come in the DVD style cases now. Free CD cases for Charlie's CD-Rs!
Again, mostly in my experience it's with stupid programs(like one program that downgraded my mfc42.dll, BAH!), or simply means I need a windows patch(which is something I could do without). Ah well, I was wrong about the DLLs and MACs. Yeah, DLLs do end up being a little less than efficient in the end(especially programs that use program specific DLLs), but if I wanted pure efficiency I wouldn't go with MacOS or Windows.
Winamp shows up as o% percent on my computer, so it can't be for music. Anyway, I actually find that most people are rather impatient with computers, and that the response time of the system. While arguably this can be increase by using a better OS, most people are going to be using Windows. While it may only be one second, people have a tendency to recognize the slow down and exagerate the difference. True, it isn't worth $1000 for most people, but that's the only thing I could think of other than the majority of programs getting less efficient, and stupid web pages that use every plugin under the sun.
1.)Have you ever worked anywhere that required working with colors and shapes? What if those colors and shapes needed to look the same on every monitor in the shop? Well, that new Apple Display Connector should help.
Yeah, you can buy those too. If you are really going to need that kind of accuracy, you probably bought monitor/video card that already has this feature included(GO SGI FLAT PANEL, WOOO!). Anyway, ensuring color consistancy on all platforms has been solved a while ago.
2.)Want to add hardware? While you'll have fewer options than a Wintel user, your purchase is almost guaranteed not to conflict with any common configuration. And when you want to put it in, you open the door (no screws).
You know most PCs have screwless maintainance(well, with the case anyway. I like sun hard drive holder. in/out in/out... WWWEEEEEEEE!!!). It's all in case design, and if you don't like it, you can always get a different case(same with an apple machine too I guess)
Also, I have had very few problems dealing with hardware conflicts, especially now a days. So much in windows is handled almost transpartly by the OS now. While it still is slightly buggier than the Mac version, it also has to deal with more hardware. It's not as bad as you make it sound.
3.)Your purchase will last. I own a Power Mac 8600. I do all kinds of demanding work on it. To be fair, video is not one of them. But guess what? It's still really fast. Sure, I notice the difference during some Photoshop filters, and during sound file manipulations, but my machine was bought after the G3 came out. Let's see how those celeron boxes are doing in 4 years.
The speed increase in both platforms I believe has been very similar. What you argue is just a point of view. I used the same computer until recently for about 5 years(Windows, not a single reformat). I did basic 3D animation/modeling. If you can do it five years ago, you can still do it today on the same machine. Some people don't seem to understand that at all.
4.).DLL? what's that?
Dynamiclly Linked Library. Though I have never programmed on the MacOS, I'm pretty sure you have something similar. Anyhow, I don't really see the point of your argument. If there is a problem with DLLs it is simply a bug in the program(or in some cases the dll), not in the concept of DLLs.