Hacking Why we may have to wait a couple years regardless

pachura

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
566
Trophies
0
XP
240
Country
Brian10122 said:
Lol yobro you're an idiot. Smaller screen doesn't mean files are smaller.

Yes it does. Smaller screen allows for lower resolution textures and models with less triangles - they still look acceptable. The same for full motion videos; with lower resolution you can use lower bitrates to get the same perceived quality while maintaining identical framerate.
 

Ryukouki

See you later, guys.
Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
4,948
Trophies
0
Age
30
XP
3,293
Country
United States
Easy test. It even applies with a photo. Pick up a say 1900x1200 image off of Google. Note its size. Go to Photoshop, resize it, and then note the size again. Notice how it got SMALLER. Same concept kinda applies with video.
 

mysticwaterfall

Streamforce Supreme Commander
Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
1,874
Trophies
0
Location
Right behind you
XP
668
Country
United States
You know I was thinking about this more and you know how many games total I had on the original GB back in the day? 14. Did this bother me at all? No. People are so spoiled these days.
 

DiscostewSM

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
5,484
Trophies
2
Location
Sacramento, California
Website
lazerlight.x10.mx
XP
5,471
Country
United States
pachura said:
Brian10122 said:
Lol yobro you're an idiot. Smaller screen doesn't mean files are smaller.

Yes it does. Smaller screen allows for lower resolution textures and models with less triangles - they still look acceptable. The same for full motion videos; with lower resolution you can use lower bitrates to get the same perceived quality while maintaining identical framerate.

That (combined with compression and video manipulation) is the main reason why they are smaller, not because of resolution. Resolution plays a minimal role in comparison (like key frames). Unlike a picture, a change from one frame of video to the next is based on differences from one render to the next. You could have a 1900x1200 frame to start with, but chances of the next frame being completely different from the last to require a completely new frame of data is slim, when a simple shift of key areas of the image can do the trick at a much less cost to space.
 

pachura

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
566
Trophies
0
XP
240
Country
DiscostewSM said:
pachura said:
Brian10122 said:
Lol yobro you're an idiot. Smaller screen doesn't mean files are smaller.

Yes it does. Smaller screen allows for lower resolution textures and models with less triangles - they still look acceptable. The same for full motion videos; with lower resolution you can use lower bitrates to get the same perceived quality while maintaining identical framerate.

That (combined with compression and video manipulation) is the main reason why they are smaller, not because of resolution. Resolution plays a minimal role in comparison (like key frames). Unlike a picture, a change from one frame of video to the next is based on differences from one render to the next. You could have a 1900x1200 frame to start with, but chances of the next frame being completely different from the last to require a completely new frame of data is slim, when a simple shift of key areas of the image can do the trick at a much less cost to space.

The quality of compressed video is expressed with Quality Factor (qf) - resolution times framerate divided by bitrate. Noone sane would lower the resolution while keeping the same bitrate and framerate, as this would result in unnecessary increase in the perceived video quality.

What you're saying is partly true, however even with delta frames there's lot more information when encoding differences between two 1920x1080 frames than between two 800x240 frames. So yes, resolution does matter and does influence the encoded file size.
 

notmeanymore

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
2,700
Trophies
1
XP
711
Country
United States
I only have 16gb in my PSP (two 8gb MicroSDs in a dual-adapter), and I get by just fine.

Plus once the 3DS gets hacked, people like me can start inventing crazy shit to increase storage space.

If the 3DS gets softmodded, that leaves Slot 1 open. I'm sure it's possible to make a special cart just for reading SDXC's for some extra space. If we can read MicroSDs even now, it can't be impossible to read a full-size SDXC.
 

heartgold

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
4,378
Trophies
0
Location
London
Website
Visit site
XP
2,085
Country
I wouldn't mind if my SD can hold two 3DS games, All I wanna do is test the games out and if I like it then I'll buy them
smile.gif
 

Whisky1981

Member
Newcomer
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
17
Trophies
0
XP
100
Country
Slovenia
It dosent matter how many games can I put on the card. One is always enough because I dont play more than one game at a time....so i dont care if its gonna be one or 10 games....I just care if it will be possible
smile.gif
.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Veho @ Veho: Apply snorgle to pinfor.