Recommended Posts

Yeah, I focused on that one, too. You know, the one that makes you wrong yet again, as we've been trying to point out to you.

I agreed with the tweet that I provided, not hiding that. That's why I posted it. But then that's why I also provided in my previous post a better encoded source that skipped the YouTube encoding (which deceased the quality of the image a bit), for much better quality for the likes of you and her.

Now prove me wrong in what? That the PS3 demonstrated version is far less detailed than the PC version, or what?

Because I never said the PS3 version is more impressive than the PC's one :blink:

LOL. Didn't know I'd wondered into a flame war. I do think the PS3 will look great but I also don't think that the PC is as powerful as people make out in practical terms. Sure there is a lot more horsepower but there is also several more times overhead than what you get with PS3 or Xbox 360.

I agreed with the tweet that I provided, not hiding that. That's why I posted it. But then that's why I also provided in my previous post a better encoded source that skipped the YouTube encoding (which deceased the quality of the image a bit), for much better quality for the likes of you and her.

Now prove me wrong in what? That the PS3 demonstrated version is far less detailed than the PC version, or what?

Because I never said the PS3 version is more impressive than the PC's one :blink:

No one here is debating with you that the PC version doesn't look better -- you get that, right? We're debating with you that it looks "like DICE didn't even try" with the console versions, and that the videos and screen captures you've been posting are indicative of what we'll see on our home television sets.

Also, your second video still does not take into account that the image has been compressed when it was broadcast, which you don't seem to be comprehending. Yes, the Youtube version was further compressed, but this is yet another recording of a compressed signal. You've seen the comparisons of a Blu-ray and a movie broadcast in HD, correct? You're going to face a similar issue here.

It wasn't filmed off-screen. It was a direct feed, just like the presentation of the tank battle in E3.

If it wasn't, the end result would be a lot of this: http://i.imgur.com/l2EnK.jpg

Do notice there's no camera in front of the screen to capture the so called "off-screen" footage. And if there was a camera behind Jimmy and the guys from DICE capturing the screen showing the game, we would see their backs as they're in front of the screen. So no, def. not an off-screen footage.

You assume they are filming it from the same screen.

It was already stated on the official Battlefield blog that it was filmed off-screen. And it's pretty clear that it was:

Battlefield 3 just made its public console debut! We went to New York to visit Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, where we played Battlefield 3 live on PS3 in front of the audience. Check it out below. Sorry for the ghosting and rasterizations -- this was filmed offscreen.

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/Default.aspx##

^ :rofl:

No one here is debating with you that the PC version doesn't look better -- you get that, right? We're debating with you that it looks "like DICE didn't even try" with the console versions, and that the videos and screen captures you've been posting are indicative of what we'll see on our home television sets.

Also, your second video still does not take into account that the image has been compressed when it was broadcast, which you don't seem to be comprehending. Yes, the Youtube version was further compressed, but this is yet another recording of a compressed signal. You've seen the comparisons of a Blu-ray and a movie broadcast in HD, correct? You're going to face a similar issue here.

honestly, i would be STOKED if they didn't try on the console versions. now the console players know how it feels to be a PC gamer for the last 5 or so years... being treated as the ****** child of gaming.

No one here is debating with you that the PC version doesn't look better -- you get that, right? We're debating with you that it looks "like DICE didn't even try" with the console versions, and that the videos and screen captures you've been posting are indicative of what we'll see on our home television sets.

Also, your second video still does not take into account that the image has been compressed when it was broadcast, which you don't seem to be comprehending. Yes, the Youtube version was further compressed, but this is yet another recording of a compressed signal. You've seen the comparisons of a Blu-ray and a movie broadcast in HD, correct? You're going to face a similar issue here.

The "didn't even try" referred to major missing details in the game (details on walls, on fences, buildings, people in front of you not to speak a few meters ahead of you (lod in general), lighting, shadows and etc.). Not the image quality and compression of the video itself. You can notice the lack of the details even with heavy compression.

And I know the PS3 is limited in power compared to the PC, but games before BF3 had those details perfected even in earlier builds (Advanced Warfighter 2 on the consoles for example. And that game was released back in 2007). And four months before the release, that can't be a demo of that early of a build, of a complete level that was already shown on different platform month (if not two) ago.

You assume they are filming it from the same screen.

It was already stated on the official Battlefield blog that it was filmed off-screen. And it's pretty clear that it was:

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/Default.aspx##

That only bring us back to the image quality of the video, and not the details in the game itself.

This is just unacceptable. Look at how horrible the graphics are in real-life!

You should turn on the deinterlace filter in your video player and then try again.

Early speculation is a waste of time.

The game will look great all around. The game will look best on a $2,500 PC, that is the advantage on throwing down g's on a gaming rig. End of story.

Don't like it? Too bad.

Yea but..

Gaming Rig - $2,500

Battlefield 3 PC copy - $60

60 Degree Console FOV - Negative 9,000....

Watch they will manage to screw it up some how.

all that video is doing is showing that a developer is actually taking advantage of the power of a current PCs instead of making a console port. MUCH respect to DICE for that. and that's still a ****ty video to make the comparisons. maybe everything it says is right, but look how muddy the PS3 coverage looks compared to the PC coverage...

I really hope the menu's and what not on PC are optimized for a mouse and keyboard and not a controller though...

I'd rather spend ?150 on a console to be honest..

Agreed. TBH I thought BF3 looked great on PS3 though it is pretty obvious that the PC looks really good if you have the specs for it. I'm more curious to see CoD MW3 vs BF3 comparison imo.

Put it this way, if I could afford it I'd be buying this for PC, along with every other game, because imo PC Gaming is much more enjoyable, in terms of gameplay.. the communities that form.. and the modifications that follow, but I can't so ?150 instead of ?1000 for slightly inferior graphics really doesn't bother me whatsoever.

In no way did I suggest spending money on a new PC just for one game, simply correcting the over exaggeration of the cost for a more than decent PC capable of running it on max. If you have a console and not a good PC for this game, just buy it for consoles. I find it silly anyone would lay down cash to get a brand new computer just for one game unless there's a bigger picture involved besides gaming purposes.

Agreed. TBH I thought BF3 looked great on PS3 though it is pretty obvious that the PC looks really good if you have the specs for it. I'm more curious to see CoD MW3 vs BF3 comparison imo.

Why? Just go look at any other CoD over the past few years and you're looking at it MW3...nothing to compare. BF3 on any platform will destroy CoD visually (fact).

Put it this way, if I could afford it I'd be buying this for PC, along with every other game, because imo PC Gaming is much more enjoyable, in terms of gameplay.. the communities that form.. and the modifications that follow, but I can't so ?150 instead of ?1000 for slightly inferior graphics really doesn't bother me whatsoever.

It won't just be slightly inferior graphics though. It will be inferior gameplay as well. Maps won't be as large and player count will be limited quite drastically too.

It won't just be slightly inferior graphics though. It will be inferior gameplay as well. Maps won't be as large and player count will be limited quite drastically too.

That doesn't bother me, wasn't it the same with BC2? I love that on console so.. don't see how less players can affect gameplay really, just the situations you find yourself in, not the handling.

Like I said, I'd love it on PC, but for the sake of saving ?850 on a console instead of a rig able to play it, then I'm OK.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
    • Rufus 4.15.2393 Beta 2 by Razvan Serea Rufus is a small utility that helps format and create bootable USB flash drives, such as USB keys/pendrives, memory sticks, etc. Despite its small size, Rufus provides everything you need! Oh, and Rufus is fast. For instance it's about twice as fast as UNetbootin, Universal USB Installer or Windows 7 USB download tool, on the creation of a Windows 7 USB installation drive from an ISO (with honorable mention to WiNToBootic for managing to keep up). It is also marginally faster on the creation of Linux bootable USBs from ISOs. A non-exhaustive list of Rufus supported ISOs is available here. It can be especially useful for cases where: you need to create USB installation media from bootable ISOs (Windows, Linux, UEFI, etc.) you need to work on a system that doesn't have an OS installed you need to flash a BIOS or other firmware from DOS you want to run a low-level utility Rufus 4.15.2393 Beta 2 changelog: Add RISC-V 64 support to UEFI:NTFS Improve the guards for using the "silent" option Improve the ability to cancel during write retries Improve progress reporting for compressed image extraction Fix unrestricted XML entity expansion and integer overflow in ezxml parser (courtesy of @esadowski4) [GHSA-55r2-34wg-8mv9] Fix "silent" Windows installation failing at 75% in most cases [#2960] Fix a crash during boot when using UEFI:NTFS on Snapdragon X based ARM64 platforms [#2934] Fix the first WUE option always being checked by default [#2965] Fix an infinite loop when using Windows ISOs that contain multiple WIMs Fix "Enable runtime UEFI media validation" checkbox not always being properly enabled Other WUE improvements/fixes for OneDrive removal and username validation (with thanks to @christian8641) [#2984, #2991] Download: Rufus 4.15 Beta 2 | 1.9 MB (Open Source) Links: Rufus Home Page | Project Page @GitHub | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      515
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      83
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!