Has any progress been made in forcing this stupid ugly little piece of shit into outputting 480p instead of 480i?
just emulate
>>12566027No, zoomer. Most of the tvs of its time couldn't display 480p.If the zoomie want 480p, get a upscaler or a emulator.
>>12566027No, you have to emulate, and even then it'll just be upscaling most of the time. You should definitely either slap a hard drive, or plug an ethernet cable into your PC to run games. It's fairly easy, and free/the cost of burning one dvd. Don't do the memory card/usb route the load times are gross, and it breaks some fmv stuff.
>>12566027>composite output>480pNot without some kind of ridiculous hardware modding that wouldn't even be worth the result.
Honestly the problem isn't even that it only does 480i, but that the image is just really bad even for 480i standards. Compare the output to a GameCube's with a similar quality cable and you'll see what I mean.
>>12566027>greatest game console of all time>is 240pEat your heart out, 6th Gen babies
Why was ps2 so freakin weak
>>12566027480p output can be forced through homebrew tools such as GSM, but whether it actually works properly depends on the game. Some work fine with forced 480p, others have issues, and still others completely shit the bed. I believe games without a native 480p mode can be patched to obtain it, but that has to be done on a game-by-game basis.tl;dr yes it can be forced, no it doesn't always work, some games can be made to work but need patching
>>12566047progressive scan is bloat and you don't need it.
>>12566027480i on PS2 looks beautiful. 480p looks incredible. 480i with adaptive deinterlacing is basically 480p.
Most of the time it won't even look that good if the developer didn't do a good job optimizing it anywayshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsvJzulblRshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWCkuAj-XBY
Blurry vaseline smeared 480i. Ps2 looked like shit
>>12566116There was an HDMI hardware mod being worked on at one point, don't know if it's still alive.
>>12566116The PS2 supports component without issue
>>12566027It's not going to happen universally because the thing is optimised to straight up RENDER in 480i rather than output a 480p image as 480i like its contemporaries. That is to say it draws a line, skips one, draws the next then inverts that for the next frame.This is why it often looks blurry or interlaced compared to a GameCube or Xbox also outputting 480i like >>12566140 and >>12566285 say since the internal vertical resolution is effectively lower. The other consoles are drawing in 480p regardless of whether or not you actually have progressive scan enabled.It's honestly fucking genius considering CRTs were all that really existed back then, and on a tube the PS2 can look excellent, but it's gone on to make the thing a monumental fucking ballache to display properly on any other kind of screen.
>>12566285>vaselineonly makes sense for n64, totally missing the point forcing this onto ps2
>>12566380Makes perfect sense for ps2
>>12566382ps2 isnt blurry so it makes no sense unless your a retard
>>12566321> This is why it often looks blurry or interlaced compared to a GameCube or XboxThat is not the reason. The real reason is because fuck-heads complained about "jaggies" so devs started adding blur filters.
>>12566385>Low quality textures>480i>Motion blur effects out the wazoo>Slop signal quality on anythingYeah ps2 looked like n64 diarrhea 2.0
>>12566396>t. composite virginI'm the component chad
>>12566475Is this an NTSC thing, or a PS2 specific issue. Because that composite quality is really terrible. Over here in PAL land, composite is pretty much as sharp (or sharper) than RGB.
>>12566321Unlike the Xbox, which forced its way to 480p by selling each console at a huge loss, and the Gamecube, which benefited from being released almost two years later, Sony had to play smart with the PS2's hardware to not become obsolete, like the Dreamcast, or sell each console at an unsustainable loss at the start."99% of console gamers own a TV with av/s-video/component480i input, so why waste resources on a console capable of 480p?" This was probably sony's reasoning during the development of the PS2.But considering how great the progressive scan games look on the PS2, any game before can 480p for sure, it's up to the developers.>"but the Dreamcast was a VGA 480p capable console in 1999"Look how low its graphics capability became just 3 years later. People bought consoles to plug it on an ordinary 90s TV, not an expensive PC monitor.Anyway, imagine how much of a juggernaut the PS2 would have been if it had been released in late 2001: doubling the RAM and processor speed would probably have meant something like Gran Turismo 4 in 720p. But again, why waste resources on this if most home TVs wouldn't benefit from it?! It's amazing how sony's engineers were ahead of their time, both in reasoning and technology.
>>12566027>>12566116Didn't the PS2 support 1080i and 480p outputs for Gran Turismo 4 natively?
>>12566634IIRC the 1080i mode is not truly 1080i, as in it doesn't actually render at that resolution, it's more of an upconversion.
>>12566521this is a lie, composite is just as shitty over here.I just got a good SCART RGB cable for a Mega Drive, the difference is huge.
PS2 looks great on CRTs, 480i is actually really nice on them since it's the maximum resolution and you can't actually see the interlacing happening. PS2 looks really crisp and fluid on them.I know 480p capable CRTs exist but they looks like shit and don't have any of the things people like about normal CRTs like scanlines and the way can smooth over the rough look of some of these games. They also just look a bit blurry and not in a good way.
>>12566638Don't have my hardware set up, but from what my eyes could see and picrel, it seems to be upconverted from 960i and not 480i. Which would be the same amount of lines per full frame as 480p.So yeah, it do output 480p and 960i.
>>12566658*1080i my bad. GT4 is the one rendering 960i, the PS2 outputs 1080i.
>Muh crtsThe cope is real
>>12566027Its a fundamental hardware issue with the ps2. Best option is get some kinda of retrotink type upscaler/deinterlacer
>>12566658Are you sure its actually up-scaling to 1080i, interlaced video does not really scale, it would look like total garbage. Is it perhaps running letterboxed instead?
>>12566027Just DON'T spend $500 on a basedtink5x gadgethttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TfdT01Qri0
>>12566670Yes. From https://www.psdevwiki.com/ps2/Games_With_Alternative_Display_Modes>While those Games mentions such a Output being supported, the output itself is being upscaled from a lower resolution, mostly by rendering the Game itself at 576x960 pixels, stretched three times horizontally to render a output at 1728x960 pixels and then upscaled at the end to 1920x1080 pixels in interlaced mode by adding black boxes on all four corners covering 192x120 pixels as unsued space (as done by both ''Gran Turismo 4'' and ''Tourist Trophy'' made by Polyphony Digital respectively).It is running windowboxed in 1080i mode, 60 lines above and 60 lines below!
>>12566682Incorrect use of the word upscaling. Since no actual scaling is going on.
>>12566690Kinda, but not really? It's a 1x integer upscale. The point of upscaling is to display smaller pictures on larger screens, and integer scaling just guarantees things don't get stretched with loss or addition of information.So, yes, at the end of the day, the PS2 is still taking a 960i input and outputting 1080i.
Get an FMCB memory card and switch the image resolution
>>12566215>Not playing the superior Dreamcast verison.what are you doing with your life?
>>12566716Its kind of problematic saying that its outputting 1080i. It would be most correct to say its outputting 960i. Consider that video display modes don't don't really have any concept of active pixels, not on the wire. The total number real lines sent to the display is greater than the active lines, the extra lines form the blanking lines. What is the physical difference between running 1080i or 960i using the same total line count, or running 1080i with black bars around 960 pixels. There is no difference. They are indistinguishable. Just because some lines are backed by frame buffer pixels whilst other lines are not, the end result is the same if those lines are black in the frame buffer.
Why do the Ratchet & Clank games specifically 2 look like shit with progressive scan and widescreen?That combo is suppose to make the game look good. What gives?
>>12566027Yeah.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_segmented_frame
>>12566727>What is the physical difference between running 1080i or 960i using the same total line count, or running 1080i with black bars around 960 pixels.There are small differences, the most evident of which is actually an optical one; the perceived visual quality is going to be greater with the smaller viewport. The second most evident difference is that by adhering to the 1080i standard you could guarantee that most CRT models didn't have to do extra processing on top, possibly adding input delay depending on your model.There are other physical differences because while yes active pixels are not a concept here, it still does make a difference to windowbox it or not in regards to actually drawing the picture on the screen, but 1. those are minute and 2. you can measure them out yourself on your hardware if you feel so inclined.
>>12566389That's true as well to be fair. Blur/de-flicker filters were on the other consoles too but with the PS2 you just ended up with an ugly blend of aliasing AND blur at the same time. I've toyed around with disabling the flicker filter on my Xbox and it looks really nice in some games.
>>12566634It does. But I'm convinced GT4 downgrades its lighting effects and maybe a couple other things to achieve this. I don't have component cables for my PS2 to test that for sure though, it could've just as easily been an emulator bug, but there was definitely a reduction in rendering quality when using the progressive mode under PCSX2. This was also a long time ago though so if it was a bug it might've been fixed by now.
>>12566027It's so icky that the controller is bigger than the console
>>12566038the Dreamcast can do 480p via VGA, grandpa.
>>12568582that doesnt count. Nobody had an expensive pc monitor back then you stupid zoomer
>>12568585>nobody had a VGA monitor in 1999babby's first LARP i presume? anyway, stop moving the goal posts. a 1999 console could output 480p
>>12568582So what?No one used a pc monitor to plug a video gameThe dreamcast came with a standard composite cable, just like every console, including the so powerul xbox.
>>12566027you can't force all games to output 480p because many ps2 render natively at 480i (actually more commonly 448i, the point is they're natively interlaced)
>>12568620>No one used a pc monitor to plug a video game>to plug a video gamelol. lmao evenanyway keep moving the goal posts. a 1999 console can output 480p
>>12566215at 30fps 480p and 480i are identical in quality. they're scanned differently on a crt but on a progressive/sample and hold display like any modern one, they're literally identical at 30fps
>>12568627No one cared about 480p if it can only deliver 480piss graphicsEveryone agrees that Granturimo3 is the biggest leap in generation graphics and it run at 480i So, stop trying to rewrite history, zoomer, saying that 480i is bad. The only thing bad here is the horrendous and dated dreamcast graphics.Now, shut up
If you're playing on hardware, there there is no way around it and you have to embrace it. If you're too much of a faggot to accept this, just emulate it like every other troglodyte and fuck off.
>you have to embrace diarrheafuck off shitter
>>12568653if the game doesn't provide it as an option then you can't do it. unlike other consoles the ps2 actually can render to an interlaced framebuffer, which saves processing time and video
>>12568657and video memory*
>>12568657maybe sony should have spent more money on engineering and less on marketing so we could have had a console that doesnt output ass video quality
>>12568671for most of the ps2's life almost everyone had tv's which could only display interlaced video, it's only weird now
>>12568671>ass video qualitystop lying
>>12568680yes 480p looks good, thank you for proving my point
>>12568671what you need to remember is that through the '00s 99% of people had regular interlaced SDTVs, and whether your console/game supported 480p or not was inconsequential. you can't output 480p to a regular SDTV, you need an EDTV or HDTV for that, so damn near everyone who used a dreamcast/xbox/gamecube used it at 480i
>>12568683Now if there only was a gaming company that also sold tvs....
>>12568698what are you getting at?
>>12568698Probably Microsoft.If they didn't mind selling each Xbox at a substantial loss, they probably wouln't mind designing and selling a 480p capable TV at a loss already in the early 2000s, right?
>>12568682stop lying
>>12568647>yet an other goalpost displacement pathetic. you're arguing with yourself at that point
>>12568698fact is that there isn't enough of a difference for most content between 480i and 480p on a crt tv for enough people to care about buying EDTVs. pretty much the only difference outside of consoles was that they didn't have that slight shimmer interlaced displays do. broadcast tv, vhs, and even dvd didn't offer any improved resolution on an EDTV, pretty much only consoles could
>>12566027https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMS0JsOUQcUthis works for 90% of all games, you dummyjust search for>opl gsm ps2also, Lmao at this thread. 68 replies but no answer. we got some elite retroomer in here...
