DOOM 3 at 4000 x 3000 pixels?

MY GOD! People have the gall to mock me?! Such senseless senselessness!

Look people. I'm serious. There are three barriers to running anything at 4000x3000.

First of all, there isn't a video card in the world whose RAMDAC can sync that.

Second of all, there isn't a monitor or display device in the world that can DISPLAY that. They might have used some strange multimonitor setup, but I doubt it. See above.

Third of all, even if you could get around the above two points, there's still the matter of actually running the game in 4000x3000. Do you REALIZE what kind of fillrate that would munch?

What in the world makes any of you so certain that these pictures aren't scaled up?

have you actually looked at them, normal things that come with upscaling are not present, the pics are very detailed and sharp with no visible blurs or anything like that. possibly done with some very good image software, but why bother to resize them to a resolution larger than that of the majority of desktops?

btw standford university has something called the 'iRoom murel' (iRoom is actually the name of the room it exists in I believe) which runs at 4000x3000 so it's not impossible to have a display of that size

If three dee modeling software can render 4000x3000 images, why cant Doom? Thats not to say, oh yeah youll be able to run the game in 4000x3000 on your overclocked geforce fx 5900 ultra pro 2 turbo (the new challengers). The shots exist (Im not gonna bother downloading them), and so there must be a way.

Not to ruin your little dicussion, but don't you think this belongs in the tech forum?

auxois said:

You guys are idiots.

The fact of the matter is that there is not a video card in the world that can run 4000x3000. Period. End of story. The pictures were scaled up.

There is no argument with this because I am stating FACTS. You cannot argue with facts. Kthx. Bye.

I don't give a shit if there is a video card in the world that can run 4000x3000 or not - these screenshots were taken in that resolution. Period. End of story. The pictures weren't scaled up.

If you're going to continue arguing this bullshit, look at the hard facts:

Part of original screenshot (artificially brightened to make things clearer). Notice that geometric borders are sharp while textures are smooth - an effect you could never achieve by post-resampling a rendered image:


And here's the same part, resized down to 50% and then to 200% of that using bicubic resampling. If you think there is any better technique for resampling images, please point me to it and try to convince me why anyone would go through the effort of using it just to make an oversized screenshot.


Get it?

Render-to-texture maybe?

Alright Fredrik, since you're the only person to actually present any sort of logical argument here (and a solid one, if simple), would you care to explain to me how these were made? Are we to assume they are static renders? Even if they're static renders somehow done with the Doom 3 engine, that does nothing for us. And if they're not in-engine, then why the hell do we care?

Any time I argue something I always think of ways to defeat my point, and in doing so I considered two possibilities - that the engine itself provides a way to take supersampled screenshots. But what resolution would this be supersampled from?

The other is this - it's also possible they were using supersampling FSAA while the game was running, and they took a picture thereof - but normally, when you do this, you simply take a nice supersampled screenshot. Perhaps JC found some way around that, but I really doubt it. I'm fairly certain it would take custom drivers - if it's even possible. And at any rate I'd like to see a card which has the kind of power to run the game sampled up to 4k*3k.

My primary complaint was actually that people were saying "OMG DOOM 3 WAS RUNNING AT 4K*3K AT QUAKECON!" which is obviously completely false. Obviously.

So the question remains - assuming these shots were produced with an original resolution of 4000x3000, how so?

My primary complaint was actually that people were saying "OMG DOOM 3 WAS RUNNING AT 4K*3K AT QUAKECON!" which is obviously completely false. Obviously.

Of course.

So the question remains - assuming these shots were produced with an original resolution of 4000x3000, how so?

I don't know. But there are possibilities. Like Zoorado said, it might have been rendered to a texture. Also, id Software might've used a sponsored development version of a next-gen video card. And don't forget that it might not necessarily have been rendered in realtime.

I dunno about the whole "dev version of a next-gen video card" thing. I just don't see it. Sure, both big companies have stuff that is likely ready for primetime pretty quick here, but I just don't see either of them being able to do THAT.

Hahah, now we have two more from gamespy, what does that tell you?

I run 1280x1024

EDIT:

*********************
750th Post!!
*********************

Hooray for posting in month-old threads. Granted, this forum is not very active... but could you please at least post ON TOPIC if you resurrect threads? Kthxbye.

have yall seen the wildcat 4 card? tell me that you cant run it at that res cus my friend does it all the time. seriously. with 4 monitors to boot. its all you need to run cdi animations really.

ARISE THREAD! FROM THE GRAVE!