The INQ is loosing it..

[Ubermann]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33097

Now check those pics..im dying.
And it seems like the one that edited the picture wasnt that steady on hes hand =)

How can he even post this ?

[shimq1]

Looks like the water in the ATI picture was sharpened with Photoshop.

[.sentinel]

That is totally photochopped.

[PkG.1337]

INQ is FOS

[Starscream]

Fuads photoshop skills suck more then mine.

he forgot parts of the water and also took some of the people with him.

btw if Nv used lower precise shaders shouldnt that (if this werent a photoshopped pic) also show in something else then the water?
as everything else looks 100% identical.


seems everyone that wants to burn down theinq at times now has another weapon in their arsenal.

[b0bd0le]

wow
that is absolutely absurd

if you zoom in 400% on the boat, you can actually see how that sharpening filter/tool he used reduced the level of information. it just washed out the colors

lol if you're going to photoshop at least do a good job at it

[Torkain]

Funny how a thread at XS can show just how bad his Photoshopping skills are. The difference test definitely shows it to be a sharpen tool. Really funny that like Starscream said, the water isn't even selected correctly... he couldn't even get the edges selected right. Really bad Photoshopping skills.

[Cobalt]

The pics don't show up for me but could someone use a difference mask on them and post it up so we can see exactly what is different.

What I hate most about this is that it will reflect badly on ATi when its Fuad (or one of his associates) whos doing this.

[einCe]

the inq should hire me to edit their pictures because they blow.

[Torkain]

Click here for the difference test, Cobalt. I didn't want to post the picture in the thread due to it's size.

[Starscream]

The pics don't show up for me but could someone use a difference mask on them and post it up so we can see exactly what is different.

What I hate most about this is that it will reflect badly on ATi when its Fuad (or one of his associates) whos doing this.

it reflects bad on both of the companies.
As ive looked around the forums and it seems alot of people are swallowing it and trash Nvidia for it.
Although others that actualy believe theinq on this say that the prefer the less precise Nv pic.

[Cobalt]

Thanks for the difference pic. Its definatly a sharpen mask. He just selected the water and applied it. He didn't even check the edges properly and included the boat as well. A terrible and obviously fake photoshop. Considering the reest of the pic is exactly the same doesn't help its credibility. There should be diferences across the entire scene because ATi and nV lighting is slighly different and if there is AA applied then there would be some differences along every single edge.

[majestik]

Click here for the difference test, Cobalt. I didn't want to post the picture in the thread due to it's size.

and if you increase brightness by 70, you can clearly see the selection area he used for the water, like this

[Ubermann]

We cant be sure its FUAD that made the edit it can be anyone..
But posting it just made INQ going as low as it possible can get.

[biohead]

requesting life
access denied

[Syn.]

If you look at the images you will see that the actual rendering part of the image is just water and the boat, the surrounding/people is just a still picture.

I have one reasons to belive that these images arent messed around with:
1) Who the hell would go that low to lie and then be proven wrong by the same benchmark when it comes out?

I am going to wait for the bench to come out and see things for my self.

[Torkain]

Syn, I was just posting about how it seemed a large portion of this scene seems to be from a real image/video and checked to see if anyone else noticed this yet, so you beat me to that part. =p

There IS another extremely odd part of this image that both images display. Why is the water seamed together? It's almost like it's water is textured... to the screenshot's plane? Why are the seams not going along the water's plane. It almost seems like NOTHING of either image is real gameplay.... except for the crappy boat being a render (i'm guessing, it seems so bad it could be drawn).

You ask why someone would go that low and lie? Why would you release "screenshots" (remember, theinquirer.net is claiming these are screenshots) that when blown up you can see that a LOT of the image has parts taking from real photos/videos? (way too much detail in some areas and the buildings look flat like they pieced images together) How is that a benchmark?

Also, I don't think theinquirer.net has anything to do with the possible photoshopping and/or creation of these. These images were in Photoshop back on 07/12/2006 at roughly 20:35 (nVidia) and 20:38 (ATI) (as the thread I linked before said, just open them in notepad and you get the date/time). I can't see them sitting on these shots and not writing up the story for a week.

[nn_step]

That is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen

[Starscream]

We cant be sure its FUAD that made the edit it can be anyone..
But posting it just made INQ going as low as it possible can get.

true but common would u write a piece about 2 pictures without looking at them first?
So either Fuad faked it wich makes him an A**.
Or Fuad didnt check them pics and just wrote the article wich makes him an idiot.

so either way Fuad is to blame

edit: i know fanboy is an ugly word etc but from just reading another forum i just have to laugh as even tho its so easy to see alot of people stil think theinqs story is true :/

[biohead]

edit: i know fanboy is an ugly word etc but from just reading another forum i just have to laugh as even tho its so easy to see alot of people stil think theinqs story is true :/

That's the difference with XS and other forums

[Eastcoasthandle]

If you look near the shore line you can clearly see a dividing line where the sharpening starting and ends. It's about 1 inch from the wall just below where the people are. However you hve to zoom in at least 150% in order to see it properly. You can see where the sharpening starts and stops at the lower right edge of the picture and at the very end of the dock where the people are.

[Hicks]

The Inq should be shut down.

[`odin]

That is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen

*gives nn_step a mirror*

[RAMMAN]

the inq has officially lost it:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33131

[Gautam]

Just to confirm what we already know, pulled this out randomly out of the JPEG.

 A d o b e P h o t o s h o p C S 2
8BIM  

ÿá:³http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ <?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="3.1.1-112">
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdfescription rdf:about=""
xmlns:xapMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#">
<xapMMocumentID>uuid:EF841D94DD11DB118753F8B3571ACFC3</xapMMocumentID>
<xapMM:InstanceID>uuid:F0841D94DD11DB118753F8B3571 ACFC3</xapMM:InstanceID>
<xapMMerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
<stRef:instanceID>uuid:6F30EA6FDD11DB118753F8B3571 ACFC3</stRef:instanceID>
<stRef:documentID>uuid:6F30EA6FDD11DB118753F8B3571 ACFC3</stRef:documentID>
</xapMMerivedFrom>
</rdfescription>
<rdfescription rdf:about=""
xmlns:xap="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
<xap:CreateDate>2006-07-12T20:38:45+01:00</xap:CreateDate>
<xap:ModifyDate>2006-07-12T20:38:45+01:00</xap:ModifyDate>
<xap:MetadataDate>2006-07-12T20:38:45+01:00</xap:MetadataDate>
<xap:CreatorTool>Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows</xap:CreatorTool>
</rdfescription>
<rdfescription rdf:about=""
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
</rdfescription>
<rdfescription rdf:about=""
xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/">
<photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode>
<photoshop:History/>
<photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile>
</rdfescription>
<rdfescription rdf:about=""
xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
<tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
<tiff:XResolution>720000/10000</tiff:XResolution>
<tiff:YResolution>720000/10000</tiff:YResolution>
<tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit>
<tiff:NativeDigest>256,257,258,259,262,274,277,284 ,530,531,282,283,296,301,318,319,529,532,306,270,2 71,272,305,315,33432;C19DD7BD9127F41A387D1FB0732D6 EB1</tiff:NativeDigest>
</rdfescription>
<rdfescription rdf:about=""
xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
<exif:PixelXDimension>1600</exif:PixelXDimension>
<exif:PixelYDimension>1200</exif:PixelYDimension>
<exif:ColorSpace>1</exif:ColorSpace>