View Full Version : The Neverending Upscale Discussion Thread * Summary=#457
mrcorbo
03-Aug-2007, 16:08
I don't understand how this would prove that Halo 3 was less than 720p. Wouldn't the angle of the line (or in this case edge) you are looking at relative to the horizontal axis have to be exactly equal to or an exact fraction of 45 degrees for you to see a direct correlation between the change in vertical position and the number of "steps" you would see in the image?
I think when it's smaller than 45 degrees it's still OK.
Well, I just created a 1280X1024 image in MS Paint, drew a 450X45 pixel rectangle and then drew a line from corner to corner. There were 42 steps. Unless I am missing something, I think your premise is flawed and that makes the conclusions you have drawn useless.
Ones method is completely flawed, which is what irks me in the nonsense he's started. Can we get back to talking about the game and leave One out of this?
Halo3 looks like it's going to be a blast to play, I'm really curious what bungie means by they designed the game to be replayerable more times through and the expeience will be different each time. I wonder if there will be random battles or something along those lines.
scooby_dooby
03-Aug-2007, 16:17
It's vastly different from the actual game, though.
No. That shot looks exactly like the Beta looked.
Rangers
03-Aug-2007, 16:22
Well whenever the game comes out IGN, Gamespot, and other sites will take plenty of pics from the framebuffer, so if it's not 720P it'll show up there right?
I hope one doesn't try to deny it's 720P if all those pics come up 720P.
Well whenever the game comes out IGN, Gamespot, and other sites will take plenty of pics from the framebuffer, so if it's not 720P it'll show up there right?
I hope one doesn't try to deny it's 720P if all those pics come up 720P.
Isn't the scaler in the 360 part of thew GPU? Is the frame buffer pre or post scaled?
Rangers
03-Aug-2007, 17:00
Isn't the scaler in the 360 part of thew GPU? Is the frame buffer pre or post scaled?
I dont know, people point to screens to say a game is 600p so...
But I dont think it's viable. PGR3 is supposedly 600p (who knows if even that's true, really, but it's one of the titles most commonly said as 600P) and IGN has a bunch of 720P shots of it. As well as a few at various odd resolutions and even one at 1920X1080 I think. So does that mean it's 1080p?
Gamespot seems to have small 900X pics of most games, so no good there.
I dont know, people point to screens to say a game is 600p so...
But I dont think it's viable. PGR3 is supposedly 600p (who knows if even that's true, really, but it's one of the titles most commonly said as 600P) and IGN has a bunch of 720P shots of it. As well as a few at various odd resolutions and even one at 1920X1080 I think. So does that mean it's 1080p?
Gamespot seems to have small 900X pics of most games, so no good there.
There are three games that are less than 720P that I know of; PGR3, THP8 and COD3. I bet the frame buffer is 720P for all of them and it is post-scaler. If true then the screen shot size is no help determining the real resolution.
Cheezdoodles
03-Aug-2007, 17:20
I dont know, people point to screens to say a game is 600p so...
But I dont think it's viable. PGR3 is supposedly 600p (who knows if even that's true, really, but it's one of the titles most commonly said as 600P) and IGN has a bunch of 720P shots of it. As well as a few at various odd resolutions and even one at 1920X1080 I think. So does that mean it's 1080p?
Gamespot seems to have small 900X pics of most games, so no good there.
PGR3 photomode?
I dont know, people point to screens to say a game is 600p so...
But I dont think it's viable. PGR3 is supposedly 600p (who knows if even that's true, really, but it's one of the titles most commonly said as 600P) and IGN has a bunch of 720P shots of it. As well as a few at various odd resolutions and even one at 1920X1080 I think. So does that mean it's 1080p?
Just to clarify: The discussion based around resolution is refering to what the game is rendered at - not what the output is scaled to when sent to the TV. A game could be rendered at, i.e. 640x480 and then scaled to 1280x960. Obviously, the result would be not even close to if the game was natively rendered at 1280x960.
I think the discussion based around HALO3's resolution is interesting, as it gives us a better understanding around how devs are using the resources on Xenos to achieve what they are. If there are devs that are rendering at lower than 720p, it begs the question why and at what benefit. After all, this is a technical forum, so you can't really blame us for being curious.
At the end of the day though, and from a gamer perspective, one could really care less if the native resolution is 600p or actual 720p as it will surely look and play great. I don't think hostility is at all needed.
Hope this helped.
It certainly isn't technical when SD is defined as 480 lines in NTSC and 576 lines in PAL, while all the shots show Halo 3 obviously rendered at a higher resolution than that. I am surprised though that all the 720p captures from the trailer and the beta posted here show upscaling. I played the beta extensively and I do recall noticing at first that the fidelity was rather lacking but I quickly got sucked into the gameplay and never paid it much more mind then that. I had just been crossing my fingers that the full game will feature at least some AA and AF, without ever considering the possibility that the beta wasn't actually even pushing 720p.
MonkeyLicker
03-Aug-2007, 20:58
Stinkles won't answer anyone about the games native resolution on GA.
It's probably 720p, but I see no reason not to at least be a little more respectful to people.
I understand it's just a rumor, but it doesn't take any effort to at least be polite about it and say 720p or not.
He's answering questions about cop-op and system link so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Mintmaster
03-Aug-2007, 22:53
How so?
Here are some more 720p captures from the beta: http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_5418_en.html
Actually, those screenshots just prove his point. They are definitely slightly upscaled just as 'one' is suggesting.
This is a bit disappointing. You'd think a dev like Bungie would implement 4xAA. There's no reason for a large performance hit if you design your engine well. Automatic predicated tiling can increase the polygon counts substantially, but that's the lazy way of doing it. Dividing the scene into small objects and bounds-testing is the proper way, and this is something that will usually increase performance even without AA.
I'm going to cross my fingers that the final build won't be like this.
Frankie/Luke mentioned random placement of sniper jackals in the last update.
It sound fine, but it'd be amazingly great if these random placements affect almost every average monster in the game, not only sniper jackals. Thanks for the info
MonkeyLicker
04-Aug-2007, 01:17
Actually, those screenshots just prove his point. They are definitely slightly upscaled just as 'one' is suggesting.
This is a bit disappointing. You'd think a dev like Bungie would implement 4xAA. There's no reason for a large performance hit if you design your engine well. Automatic predicated tiling can increase the polygon counts substantially, but that's the lazy way of doing it. Dividing the scene into small objects and bounds-testing is the proper way, and this is something that will usually increase performance even without AA.
I'm going to cross my fingers that the final build won't be like this.
The guys at Bungie are being too quiet.
I think there might be something to this.
AlStrong
04-Aug-2007, 01:45
Actually, those screenshots just prove his point. They are definitely slightly upscaled just as 'one' is suggesting.
This is a bit disappointing. You'd think a dev like Bungie would implement 4xAA. There's no reason for a large performance hit if you design your engine well. Automatic predicated tiling can increase the polygon counts substantially, but that's the lazy way of doing it. Dividing the scene into small objects and bounds-testing is the proper way, and this is something that will usually increase performance even without AA.
I'm going to cross my fingers that the final build won't be like this.
Might there have been performance issues due to their way of doing HDR? (combining multiple passes of the scene with different exposures ala HDR photography)
RobertR1
04-Aug-2007, 01:46
The guys at Bungie are being too quiet.
I think there might be something to this.
They were pretty quiet about co-op also.......we saw how that turned out.
MonkeyLicker
04-Aug-2007, 01:52
They were pretty quiet about co-op also.......we saw how that turned out.
That's a game feature though.
What resolution you're running at isn't something you keep secret unless it's negative.
If it was gonna support native 1080p I could see it, but I doubt they are.
PARANOiA
04-Aug-2007, 03:00
That's a game feature though.
What resolution you're running at isn't something you keep secret unless it's negative.
If it was gonna support native 1080p I could see it, but I doubt they are.
So because they haven't explicitly shot down a silly rumour posted by one on B3D, it is therefore true? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch.
Here's a thought - let's wait until they explicitly give some information before throwing on the tin-foil hats. The amount of people looking to shit on some of the great stuff coming is really frustrating. :sad:
MonkeyLicker
05-Aug-2007, 01:51
Stinkles made a comment on the upscaling issue.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7302470&postcount=2990
Since the Beta ran at 720p I guess that settles that.
Stinkles' quote doesn't seem to confirm anything regarding H3's internal rendering resolution.
Nevertheless, H3's internal resolution is irrelevant to everyone who doesn't have an agenda (I'm refering to both sides here). The beta looked fantastic, H3 screens look fantastic, and the gameplay seems to also be fantastic. Rendering internally at less than 720p won't make the game any less fantastic.
Nevertheless, H3's internal resolution is irrelevant to everyone who doesn't have an agenda (I'm refering to both sides here).
Would selfshadowing, polycount, drawdistance, normal mapping, AA or other technical stuff be relevant?
I remember someone (Tap In?) complaining about lack of Halo 3 love on this forum. Well this thread certainly proves otherwise.
I am really surprised about all those personal attacks on One, including the ones from the official and unofficial trolls. Whatever his motives were, he came up with a reasonable evidence regarding SP engine, and people try to dispute it by MP engine, silliness, video encoding, pixel counting, or even upscaled MP shots. Holly crap I say.
I also don't understand why some people here feel the need to state "they don't care about resolution of the game" over and over again. I care, and certainly don't have any agenda, nor any feelings towards MS or Bungie. I care for most other games as well, including the ones I have no intention of playing. It is called intellectual curiosity.
Carl mentioned that technically interesting discussion should be moved to somewhere else as this thread should be hospitable to fans of the game. That would be understandable if it didn't mean among all the games in Console Games forum, only Halo is immune to technical discussion.
Sorry for this off topic post as it has nothing to do with Halo 3, technically or otherwise, it is about the attitudes of the participants here. I felt someone had to say it.
I think the orginator of that bizarre analysis forgot that we had a PUBLIC BETA AVAILABLE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD FOR A MONTH instead of spending all day counting stair-stepping on poorly encoded QuickTime movie of a trailer. Some stuff is beneath even my contempt. And my contempt swings looooooow.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7302470&postcount=2990
holy crap ML, you (via ONE) managed to piss off Frankie. :lol: :wink:
I guess that settles that indeed.
AlStrong
05-Aug-2007, 14:56
Wouldn't it be just rad if Frankie mentioned it in the next podcast? :twisted: Maybe if he's angry enough he'll actually confirm the resolution. :D
MonkeyLicker
05-Aug-2007, 23:37
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7302470&postcount=2990
holy crap ML, you (via ONE) managed to piss off Frankie. :lol: :wink:
I guess that settles that indeed.
No, it wasn't me he was replying to. It was someone else who asked over and over again. I only apologized since he seemed a little irritated.
I think the orginator of that bizarre analysis forgot that we had a PUBLIC BETA AVAILABLE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD FOR A MONTH instead of spending all day counting stair-stepping on poorly encoded QuickTime movie of a trailer. Some stuff is beneath even my contempt. And my contempt swings looooooow.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7302470&postcount=2990
holy crap ML, you (via ONE) managed to piss off Frankie. :lol: :wink:
I guess that settles that indeed.Is that a comment by a Microsoft rep? If so this is no more offtopic and it's a quite interesting comment, at first glance it appears the guy resents that his game got scrutinized and almost becomes a cheerleader of Halo fanguys, however he never mentions 720p or anything like that. What does it mean? If you flip it over it can be paraphrased like this:
I think the orginator of that bizarre analysis forgot that we had a PUBLIC BETA AVAILABLE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD FOR A MONTH instead of spending all day counting stair-stepping on poorly encoded QuickTime movie of a trailer. Unless you played it on a crappy TV or your eyesight is hazy, you could see the public beta was upscaled and not HD. You could have pointed out the same 600p thing 1 month ago, before E3, without dissecting an encoded footage now because we admit the SP engine and the MP engine are basically the same allowing coop and so on. Why now? Why now do you try to stir it up and let me handle these fanguys pestering me for 720p confirmation in the crunching phase just before the release? I already have enough headaches elsewhere!
If he deliberately crafted his post to be interpreted like that I'd be very impressed, I'd love to hire him for my PR guy :lol:
As for those who attack pixel counting, I interpret it as they fear what they may see. Halo 3 has no apparent post-processing on poly edges except for AA. The simplest way to refute my claim is, after all, to find a disproof in the same material I used by doing the same thing as I did. OTOH, one of the ways to reinforce my claim is also finding more pieces of evidence from completely unrelated scenes, based on probability theory. It can mitigate the bad WMV (not quicktime, why does that MS rep badmouth his company's tech?) encoding criticism to some degree, but I don't do it for now because I'm trying to be polite :wink:
The Halo 3 beta was a lot sharper than PGR3.
I agree, but contrast often has as much if not more to do with sharpness than resolution does. Regardless, it doesn't change what the captures prove.
AlStrong
06-Aug-2007, 06:23
Do you think Tap In didn't? I don't think so as he think it settled something.
Personally, I don't think Frankie's post settles anything... It's just more side-stepping for whatever reason he has.
My guess is that they haven't finished optimizing and are trying to decide AA level and would rather wait until things are absolutely final before confirming resolution and AA at the same time for the public.
Then again, you could take that single player screenshot and Frankie's mention of how it was taken in that Weekly Update (I previously posted in this thread) as evidence enough of what Halo 3 will be rendering in-game.
I can't recall if I mentioned it before (one of those posts that I start writing and then abandon), but did you try recreating the line edge in say, MS Paint, just with a simple line tool and then count (you can use "show grid" when you zoom in)? I'd do it, but I'm not sure what you mean by 39 steps for 45 pixels. What was the size of the grid you used to count?
Instead you may want to check out the smallest resolvable stair step or edge aliasing... Which is a problem anyway because the image isn't very clear. Even the lower resolution offerings of the video exhibit poor image quality...
rbushner
06-Aug-2007, 16:18
Here's a thought.
Why would Bungie directly respond to what some fanboy came up with in some forum. I know B3D likes to be above this stuff, but frankly this isn't. Frankie's post basically says 700k+ people played it months ago, and this 'guy' is revealing it wasn't really HD based off of a cherry picked frame in a movie. It's pretty hard to believe no one, including the fanboys didn't see this months ago. The burden of proof at this point is on one, not Bungie.
I'm all for technical discussion, but the cherry picked frame and the constant trolling barbs are not really technical, and show a large amount of bias.
Proelite does have a point too, cutscenes have always been done 2.35:1 so there is some evidence that some of the video had to be resized, which completely invalidates anything one is doing.
We will see when the game comes out, I played the beta many times on my 60" SXRD and the fact I could find people across Valhalla without the scope doesn't imply a reduced resolution to me. Now if Halo is not rendering in 720p, but manages to look like the Beta or better. Well I say that technically proves that rendering in a lower resolution can be done without hurting visuals. If you need photoshop to zoom in to see it, what is the point?
Here's a thought.
Why would Bungie directly respond to what some fanboy came up with in some forum. I know B3D likes to be above this stuff, but frankly this isn't. Frankie's post basically says 700k+ people played it months ago, and this 'guy' is revealing it wasn't really HD based off of a cherry picked frame in a movie. It's pretty hard to believe no one, including the fanboys didn't see this months ago. The burden of proof at this point is on one, not Bungie.
I'm all for technical discussion, but the cherry picked frame and the constant trolling barbs are not really technical, and show a large amount of bias.
Proelite does have a point too, cutscenes have always been done 2.35:1 so there is some evidence that some of the video had to be resized, which completely invalidates anything one is doing.
We will see when the game comes out, I played the beta many times on my 60" SXRD and the fact I could find people across Valhalla without the scope doesn't imply a reduced resolution to me. Now if Halo is not rendering in 720p, but manages to look like the Beta or better. Well I say that technically proves that rendering in a lower resolution can be done without hurting visuals. If you need photoshop to zoom in to see it, what is the point?Cherry picked? Gimme a break. Using Photoshop was to show it to those who can't feel the coarse granularity with their own weak eyes.
You say it's a 2.35:1 cut scene upscaled and then say it's not upscaled, WTF? If I could see your imaginary upscaling for a 2.35:1 cut scene, how do I miss upscaling in Beta? Just make up your mind before posting a schizophrenic "thought".
StefanS
06-Aug-2007, 18:04
The upscale discussion has been moved here. Since this is the technology forum I expect only the best behaviour from everyone. :razz:
AlStrong
06-Aug-2007, 18:32
Thanks Stefan. :)
Proelite does have a point too, cutscenes have always been done 2.35:1 so there is some evidence that some of the video had to be resized, which completely invalidates anything one is doing.
Always :?: You mean the one and only E3 2006 trailer? Besides that, none of the material Bungie has released has been in that aspect ratio. :???:
Wait guys..I lost the beginning of this discussion, what's going on here?? where and when did this discussion start!?
mrcorbo
06-Aug-2007, 18:46
Wait guys..I lost the beginning of this discussion, what's going on here?? where and when did this discussion start!?
Right about here. (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1043177&postcount=268)
For those that don't understand what One is talking about with counting pixels to prove the difference between upscaled an native, here are some example shots:
Halo rendered at 1088x612 and then upscaled to 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/haloup.jpg)
Halo rendered at 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/halonat.jpg)
Note how the angled edges in the upscaled shot show jaggies thicker than one pixel, while shot rendered at 720p shows jaggies which are all exactly one pixel thick. This difference is because the first image is upscaled while the latter image is presented at it's native resolution.
For those that don't understand what One is talking about with counting pixels to prove the difference between upscaled an native, here are some example shots:
Halo rendered at 1088x612 and then upscaled to 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/halonat.jpg)
Halo rendered at 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/halonat.jpg)
Notehow the angled edges in the upscaled shot show jaggies thicker than one pixel, while shot rendered at 720p shows jaggies which are all exactly one pixel thick. This difference is because the first image is upscaled while the latter image is presented at at it's native resolution.
Same picture in ur links
For those that don't understand what One is talking about with counting pixels to prove the difference between upscaled an native, here are some example shots:
Halo rendered at 1088x612 and then upscaled to 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/halonat.jpg)
Halo rendered at 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/halonat.jpg)
Notehow the angled edges in the upscaled shot show jaggies thicker than one pixel, while shot rendered at 720p shows jaggies which are all exactly one pixel thick. This difference is because the first image is upscaled while the latter image is presented at at it's native resolution.
Your links both go to the same image.
rbushner
06-Aug-2007, 19:10
You mean the one and only E3 2006 trailer? Besides that, none of the material Bungie has released has been in that aspect ratio.
As i recall, Halo and Halo 2 cutscenes were letter boxed. Now that you mention it though, Halo wasn't widescreen, so it may have been 1.77 there.
The Halo 3 beta was a lot sharper than PGR3.
Does the MP beta prove anything about the SP game? Wasn't the video that started all of this from a E3 SP video?
TurnDragoZeroV2G
06-Aug-2007, 19:13
Beaten twice over.
Does anyone know if we have access to some beta screenshots that are low on the compression (those gamersyde pics?)? The beta ran without any AA whatsoever, and we now know that both the beta and the final game are/will run at the same res, so we'd immediately know whether the final resolution will be 720p or significantly less (barring last-month changes, which are extremely unlikely).
Edit: and assuming Frankie isn't completely ignorant of what res the beta internally rendered at.
Same picture in ur links
Doh, fixed. :oops:
ihamoitc2005
06-Aug-2007, 19:19
It certainly isn't technical when SD is defined as 480 lines in NTSC and 576 lines in PAL, while all the shots show Halo 3 obviously rendered at a higher resolution than that. I am surprised though that all the 720p captures from the trailer and the beta posted here show upscaling. I played the beta extensively and I do recall noticing at first that the fidelity was rather lacking but I quickly got sucked into the gameplay and never paid it much more mind then that. I had just been crossing my fingers that the full game will feature at least some AA and AF, without ever considering the possibility that the beta wasn't actually even pushing 720p.
My friends, I feel resolution is not so important if AA is good and motion blur makes non blur areas look more sharp because other area is blurred. Between 1080P game and 480P game, I prefer 480p game with 4xAA and 5x effects for more realistic look. Look at video broadcast of real life (like news show), it is only 480i but is more realistic than any 1080P game! Lower resolution with more effects can have more real lighting and effects to be more like 480i video news broadcast. I think 5x effect is great! Even 1080P games have not so great textures so why not have 480P upscaled. Same blurry textures but 5x effects! Am I crazy?
Falkster
06-Aug-2007, 19:22
Right about here. (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1043177&postcount=268)
I counted 44 steps in this (http://www.freeimagehost.eu/image/eee5b9690084) picture, not 39. Here's (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y81/falkster/steps.jpg) the same image in black and white to make it easier to count.
As for Frankie not disproving this, I wouldn't read too much into it as they don't comment on every rumour. If they only disproved false rumours, then we would know which rumours were true when they don't deny them.
So a picture like this tells us?
http://www.xboxportugal.com/cutenews/data/upimages/halo3_bungie_04.jpg
I counted 44 steps in this (http://www.freeimagehost.eu/image/eee5b9690084) picture, not 39. Here's (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y81/falkster/steps.jpg) the same image in black and white to make it easier to count.
Jacking the contrrast simply hides the upscaling, you'll get the same result doing that to my upscaled to 720p shot from the orignal Halo above.
So a picture like this tells us?
http://www.xboxportugal.com/cutenews/data/upimages/halo3_bungie_04.jpg
It tells us that they can run the game at 720p without uscaling, unlike what the captures from the beta and trailer show.
Falkster
06-Aug-2007, 19:36
Jacking the contrrast simply hides the upscaling, you'll get the same result doing that to my upscaled to 720p shot from the orignal Halo above.
Ahhh, I see.
TurnDragoZeroV2G
06-Aug-2007, 19:37
My friends, I feel resolution is not so important if AA is good and motion blur makes non blur areas look more sharp because other area is blurred. Between 1080P game and 480P game, I prefer 480p game with 4xAA and 5x effects for more realistic look. Look at video broadcast of real life (like news show), it is only 480i but is more realistic than any 1080P game! Lower resolution with more effects can have more real lighting and effects to be more like 480i video news broadcast. I think 5x effect is great! Even 1080P games have not so great textures so why not have 480P upscaled. Same blurry textures but 5x effects! Am I crazy?
Agreed (my friend :razz:)
The huge problem will be if Halo 3 is like 600p, and doesn't ship with any AA whatsoever, has poor texture filtering, no good motion blur (vector based) and effects everywhere... nevermind good poly counts on characters getting close-ups and shadows...
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a 480p game, if it had excellent AA, texture filtering, and justified the lower res with technically demanding effects. I think such exceptions should be allowed to be made...
AlStrong
06-Aug-2007, 19:39
Thanks for the images Kyleb.
As i recall, Halo and Halo 2 cutscenes were letter boxed. Now that you mention it though, Halo wasn't widescreen, so it may have been 1.77 there.
Yup, Halo:CE's cutscenes were letterboxed, and the remaining image worked out to be 16:9 cropped from the in-game image (you see the black bars settle in or out). Halo 2's cut-scenes were letterboxed for 4:3 TVs and were fullscreen when you set the Xbox to widescreen. :)
Edit: Kyleb, would you mind trying 1280x544 and scaling to 720p?
rbushner
06-Aug-2007, 20:09
Yup, Halo:CE's cutscenes were letterboxed, and the remaining image worked out to be 16:9 cropped from the in-game image (you see the black bars settle in or out). Halo 2's cut-scenes were letterboxed for 4:3 TVs and were fullscreen when you set the Xbox to widescreen. :)
My bad then... :oops:
We will see the truth in 7 weeks or so.
Edit: Kyleb, would you mind trying 1280x544 and scaling to 720p?
Sure, I don't know any way in Halo to adjust the vertical FOV independently though, so the anaphoric scaling results in everything looking tall and skinny:
Halo rendered at 1280x720 and scaled to 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/haloforal.jpg)
If you were looking for an example that turns out with the proper aspect ratio, I could make take some shots from a different game like Silent Hill 3 as I know it has an FOV hack which allows for that.
AlStrong
06-Aug-2007, 20:53
Sure, I don't know any way in Halo to adjust the vertical FOV independently though, so the anaphoric scaling results in everything looking tall and skinny:
Halo rendered at 1280x720 and scaled to 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/%7Ekyleb/haloforal.jpg)
If you were looking for an example that turns out with the proper aspect ratio, I could make take some shots from a different game like Silent Hill 3 as I know it has an FOV hack which allows for that.
Ah, I know just the tool. ;) Thing is, you'll need v1.04-1.06 and there aren't exact settings calculated for specific aspect ratios. http://www.tocaedit.com/forum/dload.php?action=file&file_id=57
Maybe it would be good to have a look at SH3; I'm looking more for the difference in aliasing really. :)
Heh, thing is that FOV hack for Halo doesn't support control over the horizontal FOV and vertical fov independently. The tool for Silent Hill 3 on that same site does have those options, so I'll grab that and get to installing the game. It will take a bit of time to get the examples together though, 5 CDs and my higher math is shamefully rusty.
AlStrong
06-Aug-2007, 21:31
Oh, if you have to do all that, you don't have to... :shock: I don't want to take up your time just for a few screenshots. :oops:
No problem on the time, most of it was spent doing other things while the game installed anyway. But unfortunately in remembering that the FOV hack allowed independent horizontal and vertical FOV adjustments I completely forgot about the fact that the game renders to texture in 512x512 blocks, so I can't get the resolutions you are after. I've got some things to take care of at the moment but I'll give GTA3:SA a check later, I'm pretty sure there is an FOV hack for that with independent controls and I know it doesn't do the render to texture thing.
For those that don't understand what One is talking about with counting pixels to prove the difference between upscaled an native, here are some example shots:
Halo rendered at 1088x612 and then upscaled to 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/haloup.jpg)
Halo rendered at 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/halonat.jpg)
Note how the angled edges in the upscaled shot show jaggies thicker than one pixel, while shot rendered at 720p shows jaggies which are all exactly one pixel thick. This difference is because the first image is upscaled while the latter image is presented at it's native resolution.
I don't think this is how Xenos upscales. You need to use at least bilinear or possibly cubic interpolation.
Thought this might be helpful to some with the dots marking 5 step increments.
1x Original:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/HoodRiverDude/Misc/HaloRes2.jpg?t=1186433317
2x Zoom and Calculations:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/HoodRiverDude/Misc/HaloRes1.jpg?t=1186433876
This is the widest sampling from the area pinpointed in ONE's image (http://www.freeimagehost.eu/image/eee5b9690084) and extracted from the original image (http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/5740/798_0023.jpg) and includes 40 total steps.
Based on this sampling, if counting steps is an accurate way of discerning original scale, then the image was upscaled from 640.
-aldo
I don't think this is how Xenos upscales. You need to use at least bilinear or possibly cubic interpolation.
I used bicubic resampling. That likely that it isn't quite what has been used with Halo 3, but my intent was simply to demonstrate the general differences between an image at it's native rendering resolution and one that has been upscaled.
I used bicubic resampling. That likely that it isn't quite what has been used with Halo 3, but my intent was simply to demonstrate the general differences between an image at it's native rendering resolution and one that has been upscaled.
Nevermind my post. I kept saving and gimping halonat.jpg instead of haloup for some reason. I guess I am too tired. Nothing wrong with scaling.
Rangers
06-Aug-2007, 22:45
So how was it ascertained that PG3 allegedly ran 600P?
Because I seem to remember it was decided off of 600p photos that showed up on a site or two.
Which people are now saying are irrelevant as the scaling takes place in the gpu?
It was the same with COD3. Website images were the proof.
But now we seem to be saying, website images are no proof?
Anyway, while this is somewhat disappointing on some level if true, in the end I'm firmly in the camp that, it wont reasonably matter for the finished product. Just as, if nobody had told me PG3 was 600p I surely would have never noticed nor cared. And if Halo 3 can end up looking better for 600p, then good on em.
The problem seems to be an EDRAM quirk anyway, and not a problem with system power. This is done to avoid tiling right?
So how was it ascertained that PG3 allegedly ran 600P?
Because I seem to remember it was decided off of 600p photos that showed up on a site or two.
Which people are now saying are irrelevant as the scaling takes place in the gpu?
It was the same with COD3. Website images were the proof.
But now we seem to be saying, website images are no proof?
I'm confused also. Maybe it's the difference between the true frame buffer and a capture device that is external to the 360, ie. post-scaler. Eurogamer says this:
This game, along with its Activision stable-mate Call of Duty 3, is something of a technical curiosity. While Microsoft mandates that all games should render at 1280x720 at the minimum, these titles actually work with a much smaller frame-buffer: in the case of THP8, 1040x584. So effectively, only 66 percent of the output resolution is actually being generated by the 360 - the rest is interpolated upwards to 720p by the Xenos GPU's scaler.
...
Secondly, having dumped the frame-buffer of the game (i.e. checking the visuals direct from the video RAM before the scaler gets its hands on them), there appears to be very little anti-aliasing going on.
Which would imply they have access to the frame buffer, yet there posted pics are 720P. So how do they get to the frame buffer, dev kit?
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=78963&page=4
AlStrong
06-Aug-2007, 23:01
No problem on the time.. *snip*.
Thanks a bunch. :)
My bad then... :oops:
Oh no worries. That's not to say Halo 3's cutscenes won't be 2.35:1 just to give it that extra cinematic feel to it and it would be "smart" if the resolution were 1280x544 instead of 720p just to add extra details during those scenes. :) (*cough* hypothetically speaking ;))
So how was it ascertained that PG3 allegedly ran 600P?
IIRC, there were direct framebuffer grabs by someone over at AVS... and I think Blim confirmed it too.
It'd be nice if we could launch the beta, if online were disabled even. :(
So how was it ascertained that PG3 allegedly ran 600P?
Because I seem to remember it was decided off of 600p photos that showed up on a site or two.
Which people are now saying are irrelevant as the scaling takes place in the gpu?
It was the same with COD3. Website images were the proof.
But now we seem to be saying, website images are no proof?Here's the info I found:
http://www.bizarrecreations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8750&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90
It was based on screen grabs.
MoonFace wrote:
When you take a screengrab, the resolution of that screengrab is the same as what the GPU is generating. All 360 games so far have punted out screenshots of 1280x720 except Gotham, which punts out screengrabs of 1024x600. Oh, except when in the menus of course, at which point 1280x720 grabs are generated.Edit: It was also later confirmed at Neogaf by another frame grab.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2255384&postcount=146
-aldo
I remember reading that MS is pushing for true 1080p at 60 fps for Halo3. I guess this must be old news.
El Leone
06-Aug-2007, 23:28
Nah, it turned out to be fake and Frankie debunked it in one of the weekly updates.
Edit: It was also later confirmed at Neogaf by another frame grab.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2255384&postcount=146
-aldo
Maybe that settles it, you need a debug console to do a true frame grab, else you are grabbing with a post-scaler device external to the 360.
We still don't know if the MP and SP game is supposed to run at the same res, so even if we grabbed from the beta (I'm sure people have anyhow) it just proves the beta MP res.
Note that the devkit's won't take buffer grabs of retail games, so depending on if they release demos ore review builds then we may never be able to get proper buffer grabs. Regardless, if the full game outputs 720p images that show upscaling in 720p captures, then the game is obviously being rendered at a lower resolution than that.
Oh, and AlStrong, turns out those FOV hacks don't even work in Vista64 and I don't have XP installed at the moment so I won't be able to get the GTA:SA shots I was planning to.
AlStrong
06-Aug-2007, 23:50
Oh, and AlStrong, turns out those FOV hacks don't even work in Vista64 and I don't have XP installed at the moment so I won't be able to get the GTA:SA shots I was planning to.
No worries, but thanks for taking the time. :)
mrcorbo
07-Aug-2007, 00:18
OK. I had a thought that it might be useful to try to compare the results you would get from taking a 720p WMV video of a game that we know is rendering at (at least) 720p and doing a frame capture of that. So I went to IGN (http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/761/761161/vids_1.html) and grabbed the HD version of the Lair E3 2007 Trailer video (Insiders only) which is also 720p (obviously we know the game itself is 1080p). I looked for something similar in tone and background to the edge in the Halo 3 vid and noticed during the "Sea Serpent" section of the trailer part of the monster's body is outlined against the sky at a similar angle to the edge of the viewport in the H3 vid. So I saved this frame as a .bmp using "Save Image" in Media Player Classic and opened the image in the GIMP. Zooming in I saw identical artifacting along this edge as what is seen in the H3 vid frame capture.
I saved from the GIMP as a .png and uploaded my frame capture here. (http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb149/mrcorbo7/0982483e.png)
The section I am using for comparison is the top of the serpent's body to the extreme right side of the screen.
Now this encode doesn't seem to be particularly high quality, but that's the point. If something other than upscaling can account for these types of image artifacts than their presence doesn't necessarily mean that the source image was upscaled.
...
We still don't know if the MP and SP game is supposed to run at the same res, so even if we grabbed from the beta (I'm sure people have anyhow) it just proves the beta MP res.
allegedly the same
SP and Campaign both using the exact same engine, at the exact same resolution, so if you didn't like MP, SP will make you die of space-cancer. (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7303953&postcount=3075)
allegedly the same
And he works for Bungie I assume?
Proelite
07-Aug-2007, 00:25
We know that Halo 3 cut scenes are 2.35:1 definitely, so what's the explanation for the 16:9 cut scene in the E3 trailer? Could it be simply that they're upscaled and cropped? I know there are mathematical inconsistencies with my suggestion, but that's my only reason for the appearance of a 16:9 cut scene, which in of itself lies the biggest inconsistency. So does anyone can offer an explanation for the 16:9 cutscenes?
In addition, it suffices to say that we won't know what resolution will halo 3 run at until it gets released, even if it's running at 480p right now.
AlStrong
07-Aug-2007, 01:05
And he works for Bungie I assume?
Stinkles = Frankie = Frank O'Connor
Luke Smith also posts on gaf too.
:)
Mintmaster
07-Aug-2007, 01:07
Looking at kyleb's screenshots, I don't have a big problem with rendering less than 720p, as there's a pretty marginal difference if you aren't doing a direct comparison and actually playing the game.
However, 4xAA really should be there. It makes a world of difference when upscaling.
Let's say it is rendering at less than 720p... say 640p (or whatever)... would the cause by the size of the edram?
AlStrong
07-Aug-2007, 01:47
Let's say it is rendering at less than 720p... say 640p (or whatever)... would the cause by the size of the edram?
If they're having performance issues with AA, then probably yes. It could be that they're pushing a lot of shaders or rather, leaving some breathing room for those giant battle scenes (fewer pixels to render).
edit:
It's one of the things I'm curious about too as their HDR method involves rendering the scene multiple times with different exposures. I don't know exactly what that amounts to for in-game performance. :???:
I saved from the GIMP as a .png and uploaded my frame capture here. (http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb149/mrcorbo7/0982483e.png)
That doesn't show any upscaling.
Is it just a random resolution they choose that best suited their performance/design balance,or is there some very technical reason for that particular resolution?
Edit: And is this happening a lot on both 360 and PS3?
Is it just a random resolution they choose that best suited their performance/design balance,or is there some very technical reason for that particular resolution?
Edit: And is this happening a lot on both 360 and PS3?It's pretty common for PS2 games. I think nAo or Fafalada was posting about it.
As for 360 & PS3, this old thread has some discussion.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=30197
It seems I pointed out the same thing before the launch of Xbox 360.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=582931&postcount=14
mrcorbo
07-Aug-2007, 04:01
That doesn't show any upscaling.
That would be the point. What is the difference between this image which is supposed to be upscaled:
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb149/mrcorbo7/4ad44195.png
And this one which I know is not:
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb149/mrcorbo7/5a33d727.png
And thanks for your prior images BTW. It helps out a lot to have a reference image.
Like One explained, the Halo 3 shot shows less steps across the angle than the number of pixels in its hight. The Lair shot shots so much compression it's hard to say exactly what is being done there, but it may well simply be downscaled from 1080p with no AA. For for comparison sake here is a mostly uncompressed example:
Halo rendered at 1080p and downscaled to 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/halodown.jpg)
And again with massive compression (http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/halodown.jpg)
Edit: And is this happening a lot on both 360 and PS3?
THP8 (360)
PGR3 (360)
CoD3 (PS3 & 360)
The Darkness (PS3)
These are the only ones I know of but I'm sure there are more.
THP8 (360)
PGR3 (360)
CoD3 (PS3 & 360)
The Darkness (PS3)
These are the only ones I know of but I'm sure there are more.I think he meant upscaling from non-HD resolution.
I think he meant upscaling from non-HD resolution.
All of those games are upscaling from resolutions lower than 720p.
THP8 (360)
PGR3 (360)
CoD3 (PS3 & 360)
The Darkness (PS3)
These are the only ones I know of but I'm sure there are more.
I didn´t think COD3 scaled on the PS3 i heard something about darkness. What are the native res on those games?
As a sidenote, given the information and discussion this board has seen on 360 GPU i don´t really understand how it should be needed. What bottleneck is solved by going down in res, memory bandwidth?
I didn´t think COD3 scaled on the PS3 i heard something about darkness. What are the native res on those games?
It's 1040x620 for CoD4 according to Eurogamer. Same for PS3.
720p comparison screens. (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=75867)
It's 1040x620 for CoD4 according to Eurogamer. Same for PS3.
720p comparison screens. (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=75867)Interesting, so COD3 was upscaled to 720p for both (maybe in software for PS3?). Is there any info about Darkness?
Interesting, so COD3 was upscaled to 720p for both. Is there any info about Darkness?
There are these 720p captures from gamespot:
http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/action/thedarkness/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;1
There are these 720p captures from gamespot:
http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/action/thedarkness/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;1That's an even more interesting case, if we believe the B3D article about the PS3 scaler it doesn't support vertical scaling, so
PS3 version: 600p + 2xAA + sotware upscaling to 720p
360 version: 720p + 4xAA
THP8 (360)
PGR3 (360)
CoD3 (PS3 & 360)
The Darkness (PS3)
These are the only ones I know of but I'm sure there are more.
This is the first time I have heard the PS3 can render at a res <720P and scale up, especially considering all the hoopla about the lack of a scaler chip. Is there any evedence? Eurogamer says this:
One thing we were keen to check out was why exactly the PS3 version runs slower than the Xbox game. As the tech-obsessed have debated already, Treyarch's 360 code does some very cunning things behind the scenes - rendering a 1040x620 framebuffer as opposed to the usual 1280x720, thus relying on the 360's ANA chip to make up the difference with a spot of bilinear scaling. As far as we know, the PS3's SDK isn't quite so flexible with resolutions - so in theory it should be running at native 720p, offering almost 30% more detail than the Xbox 360 game.
I played the Darkness demo on the PS3, it looks like 720P no AA to me. Where is a discussion about the scaling?
"Nerve-Damage"
07-Aug-2007, 17:26
This is the first time I have heard the PS3 can render at an arbitrary res and scale up, especially considering all the hoopla about the lack of a scaler chip. Is there any evedence? Eurogamer says this:
I played the Darkness demo on the PS3, it looks like 720P no AA to me. Where is a discussion about the scaling?
If, the Xbox 360 was the lead platform during development (especially some third party software houses) of a particular game, I really can’t see them (developer) changing much of the port code or assets for the PS3. In other words, if the assets were 620p to begin with on the Xbox 360…there going to get ported that way…plain & simple.
If, the Xbox 360 was the lead platform during development (especially some third party software houses) of a particular game, I really can’t see them (developer) changing much of the port code or assets for the PS3. In other words, if the assets were 620p to begin with on the Xbox 360…there going to get ported that way…plain & simple.
Frame buffer resolution has zero to do with asset resolutions. I can play Quake 1 at 1920x1200 and Quake Wars at 640x480. plain & simple
"Nerve-Damage"
07-Aug-2007, 17:54
Frame buffer resolution has zero to do with asset resolutions. I can play Quake 1 at 1920x1200 and Quake Wars at 640x480. plain & simple
You are comparing apples to oranges…
My point was; if the original game design (code, assets, etc…) was started on the Xbox 360 (lead platform) and ported to the PS3 they would be identical and worst in some cases.
This is the first time I have heard the PS3 can render at a res <720P and scale up, especially considering all the hoopla about the lack of a scaler chip. Is there any evedence? Eurogamer says this:
Their very next sentence: "The screenshot comparisons put paid to this theory - it seems that both games start off at the reduced resolution before being scaled upwards (witness the trees on the left in the second comparison shot)."
I played the Darkness demo on the PS3, it looks like 720P no AA to me. Where is a discussion about the scaling?
Are those 720p screens from gamespot not evidence of scaling?
You are comparing apples to oranges…
My point was; if the original game design (code, assets, etc…) was started on the Xbox 360 (lead platform) and ported to the PS3 they would be identical and worst in some cases.
That still has nothing to do with the final frame buffer resolution.
I played the Darkness demo on the PS3, it looks like 720P no AA to me. Where is a discussion about the scaling?
Yeah I touched on the subject at GAF the other day:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7305906&postcount=394
I did eventually get bored enough to count pixels on some better pictures I took:
http://xs218.xs.to/xs218/07322/darkness720edge.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs218&d=07322&f=darkness720edge.jpg)
Give or take, given the sample size, I count around 15 steps to the edge in 20 pixels of screen height. That ratio suggests the game is being scaled from 540 vertically to 720. It's pretty much the same horizontally imho, with the game rendering at 960 and upscaling to 1280 or 1920 depending on the mode.
Their very next sentence: "The screenshot comparisons put paid to this theory - it seems that both games start off at the reduced resolution before being scaled upwards (witness the trees on the left in the second comparison shot)."
I missed that, thanks. It does seem strange that they claim a launch title is using scaling well before any other game was known to and before the SDK change even allowed it. So Infinity Ward came up with their own software scaling on the PS3?
Are those 720p screens from gamespot not evidence of scaling?
No, screenshot are notoriously screwed up on many game sights, the fact that the people playing it have not indicated anything tells me more. Even the reviews say it looks more or less like the 360 version just with differences in the blurring and color.
Edit: I see Mmmkay's analysis (very nice). Maybe we need a new sub-HD scaling thread?
This is the first time I have heard the PS3 can render at a res <720P and scale up, especially considering all the hoopla about the lack of a scaler chip.
Lacking a scaler chip just means scaling has to be done in software, nothing more.
In other words, if the assets were 620p to begin with on the Xbox 360…there going to get ported that way…plain & simple.
Game assets aren't "620p" and changing the rendering resolution generally takes more than changing a couple values, plain and simple.
Are those 720p screens from gamespot not evidence of scaling?
Not if you don't know what scaling looks like.
Which reminds me Todd, have you ever come to terms with the fact that NGS's 1080x support is upscaled?
Which reminds me Todd, have you ever come to terms with the fact that NGS's 1080x support is upscaled?
Yes I have! Mmmkay also did that analysis (I think) and was very convincing. I've posted a few times about my disappointment in the bait and switch they did with "full 1080P". I did buy the game and it is great, but I don't like being lied to. Hence we should have a dedicated thread to this subject so we can expose all the game that pull this.
I don't mind being wrong, it's how I learn - so keep busting my chops if I sound stubborn. :smile:
Heh, yeah, I just recall you trying to bust my chops for pointing out that NGS does use upscaling. I bought the game too, and prefer it at 720p anyway as it suffers less tearing there.
But my point was that those of us that know what scaling looks like can easily see those upscaling in shots of The Darkness. So unless Gamespot and Mmmkay managed to trick their PS3 into rendering at a lower resolution than normal when outputting 720p for them, then that evidence stands whether other people playing it say anything or not. Heck many people will still argue they are playing Xbox games rendered at 720p on their 360's just because reps from MS and Bungie had implied as much; however, for those of us with a more technical understanding of rendering resolution, anti-aliasing and upscaling, those claims are easly dismissed.
StefanS
07-Aug-2007, 22:25
Renamed since discussion has moved beyond Halo. Plus, it kind of useful to have a general thread on the topic, anyway.
AlStrong
07-Aug-2007, 22:34
Thanks again Stefan. :)
So from what I gather, one would need a debug kit to take a direct framebuffer dump... How did Blim get ahold of one, is he a developer :?: And if he could get them from PGR3 (confirming 1024x600), why would it not then confirm the framebuffer resolution for the Halo 3 Beta :?:
TheChefO
07-Aug-2007, 22:38
Thanks again Stefan. :)
So from what I gather, one would need a debug kit to take a direct framebuffer dump... How did Blim get ahold of one, is he a developer :?: And if he could get them from PGR3 (confirming 1024x600), why would it not then confirm the framebuffer resolution for the Halo 3 Beta :?:
Did he post direct pics from the beta or were those provided by MS/Bungie?
AlStrong
07-Aug-2007, 22:48
Did he post direct pics from the beta or were those provided by MS/Bungie?
Blim had captured a ton of media from various user records of matches (from file sharing). I seem to recall he was doing it differently than in the past... I'm trying to find the post explaining his new capture method.
edit: Well, it seems he uses an HD capture card... (So how did he get the PGR3 shots :???: ) I don't know if he got a new one since this post over at AVS (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9362717&&#post9362717):
I own a Blackmagic Multibridge PCI Express since one year now (I work for a gaming site), and I can't say I'm happy with the image quality. It's like the 720p footage is captured at 960x540 and then blown up to 1280x720. It just look extremely blurry.
This is the device: http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/multibridge/
edit2: Reading back, it almost seems like Microsoft sent him the dev kit with PGR3 loaded for review?
edit3: I guess we could compare the Beta screens to screencaptures of 360 games that don't have AA...
Probably the devkit doesn't take a screenshot of a signed game code such as a retail game.
As for Gamersyde, their Halo Beta captures are played and captured by respective people who don't own a devkit. I doubt a devkit can join Live and play it, let alone capture a frame buffer.
http://www.gamersyde.com/game_798.html
AlStrong
08-Aug-2007, 01:49
As for Gamersyde, their Halo Beta captures are played and captured by respective people who don't own a devkit.
People sent their saved films to Blim and he captured/converted the images and videos.
edit: If you didn't know, users have the ability to save replays of the matches they play. The replays are played back in real-time rather than just being videos. It keeps the file sizes down so players can share them. So, the media that Blim has released on Gamersyde may have been played by others but Blim does all the capture/conversion work.
People sent their saved films to Blim and he captured/converted the images and videos.
edit: If you didn't know, users have the ability to save replays of the matches they play. The replays are played back in real-time rather than just being videos. It keeps the file sizes down so players can share them. So, the media that Blim has released on Gamersyde may have been played by others but Blim does all the capture/conversion work.It requires a Halo 3 Beta account to play back replay films, right? Isn't it associated with hardware ID of his Xbox 360 which is not a debug kit? Then again,
I doubt a devkit can join Live and play it, let alone capture a frame buffer.this point stands. Anyway it doesn't matter as we saw already for example captures such as posted in this page.
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20070518/halo3.htm
AlStrong
08-Aug-2007, 02:34
I think there is some serious lack of understanding here. Blim captured the Halo 3 media with an HD capture card, not a dev kit.
I don't know if a devkit can go on live or not so I did not dispute that. I don't see why not since it would make testing easier for developers. But again, I don't know.
What I was disputing was your commment that other people played and captured the material. This is not true. Other people played the beta and sent their saved films for Blim to capture with his HD card and convert to screenshots or videos. That's why I only quoted that part.
But thanks for making sure your point stands when it wasn't even the focus of my previous post...
edit: Well now that got me curious. I thought I recalled IGN or Gamespot editors having separate accounts on live due to them using debug kits or something... i.e. they'll have their own account for personal use and another for work. Anyways, the folks at Gamepro seemed to be able to access Live with their debug unit:
http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox/games/previews/60648.shtml
Though, I do get the impression that it's a special version of live, which may or may not tie into the public Live (probably not).
I do wonder why you doubt a devkit could capture from the frame buffer. :???: Further more, one wouldd think there would be some sort of connection to live for the internal beta that Bungie has mentioned from time to time, an "internal" Live as it were.
mrcorbo
08-Aug-2007, 03:09
Like One explained, the Halo 3 shot shows less steps across the angle than the number of pixels in its hight. The Lair shot shots so much compression it's hard to say exactly what is being done there, but it may well simply be downscaled from 1080p with no AA. For for comparison sake here is a mostly uncompressed example:
Halo rendered at 1080p and downscaled to 720p (http://www.sunflower.com/%7Ekyleb/halodown.jpg)
And again with massive compression (http://www.sunflower.com/%7Ekyleb/halodown.jpg)
Thanks again for taking the time to post those images to illustrate the concepts that are being discussed, especially since this subject has (apparently) already been discussed quite a bit previously.
I'm still not very comfortable with using an image obtained from a frame of video which uses lossy compression to do a pixel-based analysis, but given the consensus here I'm just going to accept that the conclusions being drawn are reasonable if not definitive.
What I was disputing was your commment that other people played and captured the material. This is not true. Other people played the beta and sent their saved films for Blim to capture with his HD card and convert to screenshots or videos. That's why I only quoted that part. I knew your point in your previous post, hence this reply instead.
It requires a Halo 3 Beta account to play back replay films, right?
Also I quote what kyleb wrote here.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1045431&postcount=66
I have no idea about the validity of it but if debug kits could capture frame buffers from any signed code we'd see more direct-feed media in game websites.
I do wonder why you doubt a devkit could capture from the frame buffer. :???:My memory is fuzzy but I remember journalists have access to a special network that have preview builds, press materials and such, I suspect it's what the XBLA article you quote mentions. Anyway you can ask BlimBlim for the details.
I'm still not very comfortable with using an image obtained from a frame of video which uses lossy compression to do a pixel-based analysisAs I wrote already, that reservation is not much use when you can examine dozens of examples in completely unrelated scenes.
AlStrong
08-Aug-2007, 03:18
*snipped for space*
Ah... fair enough. :)
iceberg187
08-Aug-2007, 03:24
edit: Well now that got me curious. I thought I recalled IGN or Gamespot editors having separate accounts on live due to them using debug kits or something... i.e. they'll have their own account for personal use and another for work. Anyways, the folks at Gamepro seemed to be able to access Live with their debug unit:
http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox/games/previews/60648.shtml
Though, I do get the impression that it's a special version of live, which may or may not tie into the public Live (probably not).
I do wonder why you doubt a devkit could capture from the frame buffer. :???: Further more, one wouldd think there would be some sort of connection to live for the internal beta that Bungie has mentioned from time to time, an "internal" Live as it were.
It's called Parternet
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/685/685681p2.html
Thus, the achievements get logged onto PartnerNet, an intranet system set up by Microsoft for developers and game journalists
MonkeyLicker
08-Aug-2007, 04:30
I hadn't heard about The Darkness upscaling on PS3.
StefanS
08-Aug-2007, 07:40
Topic: Upscaling
Not-Topic: Anything else :razz:
Is this 1080p launch title being upscaled on PS3? It looks that way, even though it is much clearer than the Xbox360 version.
NBA2K7 1080p comparison screen. (http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/7/5/8/7/2/NBA_1080p_2.jpg.jpg)
edit: If you didn't know, users have the ability to save replays of the matches they play. The replays are played back in real-time rather than just being videos. It keeps the file sizes down so players can share them.
This single feature is VASTLY more important for the millions of players who will enjoy Halo 3 in the coming years, and much more worthy of discussion than the fanboyish bickering upscaled/not upscaled and bombastic slogans like "719p is NOT HD". Now please start bickering about all games who are not "True HD" aka 1080p.
What's technically interesting about the upscaling discussion, deserving a supposedly educated discussion in this supposedly educated forum? We all know that it's sometimes done, we know why it is done (fillrate/bandwidth), in less than two months we'll know for sure if it's done.
This single feature is VASTLY more important for the millions of players who will enjoy Halo 3 in the coming years, and much more worthy of discussion than the fanboyish bickering upscaled/not upscaled and bombastic slogans like "719p is NOT HD". Now please start bickering about all games who are not "True HD" aka 1080p.
What's technically interesting about the upscaling discussion, deserving a supposedly educated discussion in this supposedly educated forum? We all know that it's sometimes done, we know why it is done (fillrate/bandwidth), in less than two months we'll know for sure if it's done.Where does that 719p come from?
If you are neutral about the upscaling issue you don't have to be upset like that in the first place. You should relegate your opinion to Bungie devs who made the very decision or J "HD Era" Allard, not here.
Falkster
09-Aug-2007, 02:31
This single feature is VASTLY more important for the millions of players who will enjoy Halo 3 in the coming years, and much more worthy of discussion than the fanboyish bickering upscaled/not upscaled and bombastic slogans like "719p is NOT HD". Now please start bickering about all games who are not "True HD" aka 1080p.
What's technically interesting about the upscaling discussion, deserving a supposedly educated discussion in this supposedly educated forum? We all know that it's sometimes done, we know why it is done (fillrate/bandwidth), in less than two months we'll know for sure if it's done.
I'm one of the larger halo fans ever (though it may not show as there aren't many halo topics here), and while I agree that there are many features of halo that are worthy of better topics of conversation, I still think this is a valid and interesting topic. We know that other games are able to pull off great graphics at 720p (and higher) on the 360 without upscaling from a lower resolution, so it's not as if the 360 is incapable of HD games. So what is Halo 3 doing that other games aren't doing? Can we infer anything about Halo based on this? What about the EDRAM? Is this done to avoid tiling? If so, what does this say about predictive tiling? These questions aren't directed at anyone, but they're still the kind of questions that will only get answered if we discuss this topic.
edit: Of course, this is all assuming that Halo 3 will be released at a resolution below 720x1280, and that's a pretty hefty assumption.
Painfully obvious agendas aside, anyone up for discussing the topic? ;)
Sure, i think this is one of the most interesting topics for some time. If this topic lives a little longer Developers or is it publishers? will have to be more carefull when they claim 720p or FUUUUUL HIIDEEEF.
Besides the obvious HALO3 sensation i think the COD3 stuff is more interesting and i´m curious as if this is something that is related to their development pibeline.
You should relegate your opinion to Bungie devs who made the very decision or J "HD Era" Allard, not here.
Yawn. Plenty of HD in my 360.
And let's not turn this in to a 'which company made the most outrageous claims', because I'm pretty sure your beloved $ony would be a serious contender...
On topic: I don't care about the native rez, and I also don't get the secrecy of the industry, but that's just the way it is.
What are those official clock speeds of the PS3 again? :p
AlStrong
09-Aug-2007, 07:51
Besides the obvious HALO3 sensation i think the COD4 stuff is more interesting and i´m curious as if this is something that is related to their development pibeline.Could you elaborate? I thought CoD4 was a definite 720p.
On a side note, I'm actually curious to see how the scalers in the 360 and PS3 compare to one another. The PS3 scaler has a setting for 960*1080 (and so forth). I wonder how the 360 would handle that particular resolution when scaled (should fit within the 10MB). Heck, if a 24-bit Z buffer were used instead of 32-bit, you could try to fit a 1280x1080 back buffer into the eDRAM.
Could you elaborate? I thought CoD4 was a definite 720p.
On a side note, I'm actually curious to see how the scalers in the 360 and PS3 compare to one another. The PS3 scaler has a setting for 960*1080 (and so forth). I wonder how the 360 would handle that particular resolution when scaled (should fit within the 10MB). Heck, if a 24-bit Z buffer were used instead of 32-bit, you could try to fit a 1280x1080 back buffer into the eDRAM.
I meant COD3, i always thought it was scaled on the XBOX360 and not the PS3 :-)
Where does that 719p come from?
An (obviously not very successful) attempt at sarcasm at your proclaiming of anything below 720p to be "not HD".
I'm interested in the scaling issue from a technical standpoint.
I care less about whether 719p is HD or not,but I would be interested to know where people think the line between HD and SD can be drawn.
If 719p is HD,does that mean if some Wii dev makes a game that runs at 481p,it's HD? I'm using silly extreme example of course,but where DO you draw the line.
600p,500p,....???Obviously standards are important or they wouldn't be set in the first place.
Laa-Yosh
09-Aug-2007, 11:13
Where does that 719p come from?
If you are neutral about the upscaling issue you don't have to be upset like that in the first place. You should relegate your opinion to Bungie devs who made the very decision or J "HD Era" Allard, not here.
Are you planing to bash Sony and Factor5 about Lair's 1080p support too, if it turns out to be an MSAA based heck as many people on this forum are suspecting? After all, 960*1080 is SD as well, according to you.
I would very much welcome if the points being brought up would be debated, not the poster himself. The point is relevant, regardless what the motive of the poster is.
Laa-Yosh,
If you have "evidence" that would point to Lair's being upscaled similarly, please do post it. This is (and the discussion around it) what this topic is for, after all. I certainly welcome that much more than the open critizism towards one of our members and what you believe his motives to be...
Are you planing to bash Sony and Factor5 about Lair's 1080p support too, if it turns out to be an MSAA based heck as many people on this forum are suspecting? After all, 960*1080 is SD as well, according to you.960x1080 = 1036800
1280x720 = 921600
So what resolution does a 960x1080 game take when you choose 720p in your display settings of PS3? Does it render in 960x1080 then apply weird scaling to 1280x720, or does it render in 960x540? ;)
Shifty Geezer
09-Aug-2007, 12:18
960x1080 = 1036800
1280x720 = 921600So HD is all about counting megapixels? What do you call a resolution that isn't SD but isn't HD?
This discussion should probably be dropped. It's arguing the definition of the term 'high definition', which isn't a useful contribution to whether Halo is upscaling or not, regardless of whether people want to choose to call it's rendering resolution 'High Definition' or 'Higher Definition' or 'Superior Definition' or 'Enhanced Standard Definition' or 'Extended Lower Resolution' or 'Augmented Standard Resolution' or...
So HD is all about counting megapixels?Not really. Did you catch this line of me?
So what resolution does a 960x1080 game take when you choose 720p in your display settings of PS3? Does it render in 960x1080 then apply weird scaling to 1280x720, or does it render in 960x540? ;)My point is, if a 960x1080 game can push pixels more than 1280x720 worth already, there's nothing that prohibits it from rendering the same thing in 1280x720 which is HD.
Laa-Yosh
09-Aug-2007, 12:44
when I pointed out Halo 3 is 624p as a mere observation?
You have not pointed out anything. You have a theory and you've practically launched a campaign based on no factual evidence, and your choice of the term SD is way out of line for a technical forum, making it obvoius that your interest in the topic is far from a technological point.
Not really. Did you catch this line of me?
My point is, if a 960x1080 game can push pixels more than 1280x720 worth already, there's nothing that prohibits it from rendering the same thing in 1280x720 which is HD.
960*1080 displayed on a 720p device, how does that work?
Upscale the 960 to 1280 via the PS3 hardware and then what about the 1080? scale it down to 720p ?
Wouldn´t that count as 960x720 native pixels use to form the result on screen?
960*1080 displayed on a 720p device, how does that work?No it doesn't work, that's the point. 960*1080 (rendering in non-16:9 angle of view) + horizontal scaling in PS3 is supposed to work only for 1080p output.
When 720p is selected it just renders in 1280x720 as usual. Ninja Gaiden Sigma and Virtua Fighter 5 are upscaled to 1080p in software, but it doesn't mean they are not rendered in 720p when you run them in 720p.
Laa-Yosh
09-Aug-2007, 13:20
AFAIK Lair is able to detect 720p and renders in a native 1280*720 resolution in that case.
As for the 1080p stuff, developers here hinted that they're rendering at 960*1080 with 2xMSAA in some way where they trick the GPU to treat the multisample buffer as a full screen image. This way they have full 1080p worth of pixel information, but they're only shading about half the pixels. It's a pretty common trick in offline CG, for quick test renders.
Lair's last couple of screenshot batches have been native 1080p.
Laa-Yosh
09-Aug-2007, 13:27
Lair's last couple of screenshot batches have been native 1080p.
It's always been native 1080p, it's just that it's been undersampled.
Latest images could either be real or bullshots...
It's always been native 1080p, it's just that it's been undersampled.
Latest images could either be real or bullshots...
I used the term to differentiate between what we saw before with it being upscaled from a lower resolution, and being rendered at 1920x1080. The newer screenshots from ~E3 and later aren't upscaled.
@400%
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07324/Lair1.png
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07324/lair2.png
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07324/lair3.png
No it doesn't work, that's the point. 960*1080 (rendering in non-16:9 angle of view) + horizontal scaling in PS3 is supposed to work only for 1080p output.
When 720p is selected it just renders in 1280x720 as usual. Ninja Gaiden Sigma and Virtua Fighter 5 are upscaled to 1080p in software, but it doesn't mean they are not rendered in 720p when you run them in 720p.
Thats what i thought as well the "just renders them" part is why i wasn´t sure since i thought it was somewhat harder to have to target resolutions.
StefanS
09-Aug-2007, 14:57
First of all, the ad hominem / personal attack stuff needs to stop right now or I'll guarantee to bash some heads in. This is the fourth time a few posts had to be deleted / edited. To put it bluntly, that's enough.
Secondly, using an arbitrary measure for HD resolution is not very useful. It's more interesting to know at what resolution the titles are in fact rendering than whether it qualifies at HD.
Laa-Yosh
09-Aug-2007, 15:25
The newer screenshots from ~E3 and later aren't upscaled.
@400%
These actually show antialiasing, at least 4x MSAA but more likely SSAA. Devkit shots, not actual ingame stuff IMHO...
These actually show antialiasing, at least 4x MSAA but more likely SSAA. Devkit shots, not actual ingame stuff IMHO...
Well they obviously show AA, but good eye on the SS, I had originally thought it was something like 2xQMSAA but the aliasing patterns actually look very much like 4xOG SSAA.
http://www.nvnews.net/articles/chrisray_iq/comparison/2x2wheel.png
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07324/2x2aa.png
Which is against their precedent, pretty much everything they've put out at 1080p has been a framebuffer of the game. Be it from a dev kit or wherever, it was still what the game rendered at. These E3 images even have the game's GUI attached to them, so it's pretty underhand of them. I guess we're not going to find out exactly what it's doing until the retail game is in someone's hands (especially with talk of their last minute performance fixes).
AFAIK Lair is able to detect 720p and renders in a native 1280*720 resolution in that case.
As for the 1080p stuff, developers here hinted that they're rendering at 960*1080 with 2xMSAA in some way where they trick the GPU to treat the multisample buffer as a full screen image. This way they have full 1080p worth of pixel information, but they're only shading about half the pixels. It's a pretty common trick in offline CG, for quick test renders.
I may be wrong but didn't the Lair devs say that they made only partial updates when rendering of a frame (only changes i na frame)?
(I will dig up the article/interview later if I find it)
Laa-Yosh
09-Aug-2007, 17:02
Well they obviously show AA, but good eye on the SS, I had originally thought it was something like 2xQMSAA but the aliasing patterns actually look very much like 4xOG SSAA.
Actually, the clarity of the textures is the thing that caught my eye.
Laa-Yosh
09-Aug-2007, 17:02
I may be wrong but didn't the Lair devs say that they made only partial updates when rendering of a frame (only changes i na frame)?
That's kinda useless in pretty much all the cases except when you or your dragon don't move at all...
While we're on upscaling in general, there's something really wrong with the 1080p upscaling for Ninja Gaiden Sigma. Near horizontal edges look like they've gone through a fairly normal bilinear scaling from 720 to 1080, but the near vertical edges look completely different and very crude. At almost looks as if the game is scaling from lower than 1280 to 1920. I actually get better image quality on my 2407WFP if I let the monitor upscale the 720p output.
Here's what the game looks like in 720p mode, showing that it renders at 1280x720:
http://xs218.xs.to/xs218/07324/ngs720p.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs218&d=07324&f=ngs720p.jpg)
Here's what horizontal edges look like in the 1080p mode:
http://xs218.xs.to/xs218/07324/ngshoriz1080p.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs218&d=07324&f=ngshoriz1080p.jpg)
And here's what vertical edges look like in the 1080p mode:
http://xs218.xs.to/xs218/07324/ngsvert1080p.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs218&d=07324&f=ngsvert1080p.jpg)
Then here's the same edge but in 720p mode with my monitor upscaling it to 1080p:
http://xs218.xs.to/xs218/07324/ngsvert720pmonitorupscale.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs218&d=07324&f=ngsvert720pmonitorupscale.jpg)
If I were a betting man I'd say that this here PS3 hardware horizontal scaling system is downscaling the 1280 to 960 and then up to 1920 with disastrous results.
I must be missing something.
In NGS it was taking a native 960x1080 frame and scaling the 960 to 1920, why would it downscale a 1280 to 960 and then back up to 1920?
IMO the native 720P mode is sharper than the upscaled 1080P, but that results in harder edges.
I must be missing something.
In NGS it was taking a native 960x1080 frame and scaling the 960 to 1920, why would it downscale a 1280 to 960 and then back up to 1920?
IMO the native 720P mode is sharper than the upscaled 1080P, but that results in harder edges.
Maybe it's a fine print in the 1280x1080 scaling mode which was outlined in the B3D article? Or maybe Tecmo weren't aware of that 1280 mode and decided to scale the frame themselves to 960x1080 so that the hardware could take care of the rest? They would have to scale it once themselves anyway to get the vertical resolution to 1080 since it doesn't render any differently.
My camera shots don't really do it justice but the PS3 '1080p' edges are pretty horrendous in motion. I much prefer playing it in 720p mode and letting my monitor upscale. The whole scaling process is very visible in text and even the PS button overlay.
On the topic of NGS, perhaps one "doubles the pixels horizontally" and the other, it's rather stretched?
In anycase, in the 1920p version, at least the vertical edges should be sharp and not blurred...
I'm interested in the scaling issue from a technical standpoint.
I care less about whether 719p is HD or not,but I would be interested to know where people think the line between HD and SD can be drawn.
If 719p is HD,does that mean if some Wii dev makes a game that runs at 481p,it's HD? I'm using silly extreme example of course,but where DO you draw the line.
600p,500p,....???Obviously standards are important or they wouldn't be set in the first place.
720p is suppose to be the threshold between HD and non-HD for HDTV sets.
However, a lot of early plasmas were marketed as HD even though their native resolution was under 720p.
I think the ATSC standard may define 720p and above as HD. Not sure for EU or other regions.
There used to be consumer commissions which enforced the marketing claims for screen sizes (the actual display area vs. measuring the border). Typically the EU is more stringent on this.
Shifty Geezer
10-Aug-2007, 09:55
I think the ATSC standard may define 720p and above as HD. Not sure for EU or other regions.The actually definitions that I have read talk only about vertical lines. Thus 640x720 would be HD.
yeah the definition is a tv that has at least 720 line vertical however i am pretty sure that the other stipulation is that it is 16:9 aspect ratio mean 1280 *720 is the lowest res that a HD ready tv can be.
On a side note a res which is high than SD but isnt up to HD minimum spec is commonly reffered to as ED, as in Enhanced Definition.
Of course Sd is also a vague terms since in the US and other regions that use NTSC its 480i whilst in the Uk, europe and other PAL territories its is 575i. Then of course there is the issue the uk most PAL broadcast are anamorphically compressed 16:9 so when decompressed on the tv they actually produce a res that is 1024 *5476 interlaced. OK its interlaced but even so the jump to hd is less pronounce since we, PAL territories which use 16:9, already had a reasonable Sd res.
yeah the definition is a tv that has at least 720 line vertical however i am pretty sure that the other stipulation is that it is 16:9 aspect ratio mean 1280 *720 is the lowest res that a HD ready tv can be.
That would only be true if the pixels are square. My plasma for example is HD ready, but only has 1024 horizontal pixels.
True, i was refering to square pixels and as you say non square pixel are pretty common on plasma screens. However i guess it still holds up to the 720 lines 16:9 picture ratio setup.
Maybe it's a fine print in the 1280x1080 scaling mode which was outlined in the B3D article? Or maybe Tecmo weren't aware of that 1280 mode and decided to scale the frame themselves to 960x1080 so that the hardware could take care of the rest? They would have to scale it once themselves anyway to get the vertical resolution to 1080 since it doesn't render any differently.
My camera shots don't really do it justice but the PS3 '1080p' edges are pretty horrendous in motion. I much prefer playing it in 720p mode and letting my monitor upscale. The whole scaling process is very visible in text and even the PS button overlay.
Or maybe they used the canned 960x1080 and scaled it via the SDK and the interpretations are incorrect. I'm not sure why Techmo would make their job harder for no gain. From the B3D article:
Key among these is new support for a resolution of 960x1080. This results in a framebuffer with relatively few more pixels compared to the more standard 720p, and as a result enjoys a computational cost (fillrate cost) comparable to the one associated with 720p framebuffers to begin with (921,600 pixels for 1280x720 compared to 1,036,800 pixels for 960x1080). At the same time, it benefits from eligibility to be horizontally scaled by the resident hardware scaler.
Probably Ninja Gaiden Sigma is doing it by 1080i -> 1080p in software.
Apart from which resolution constitutes HD, didn't MS require 720p and 2x AA in all X360 games?
Maybe they didn't specify rendered in 720p vs. upscaled to 720p.
Is that requirement still in effect?
StefanS
10-Aug-2007, 18:17
Apart from which resolution constitutes HD, didn't MS require 720p and 2x AA in all X360 games?
Maybe they didn't specify rendered in 720p vs. upscaled to 720p.
Is that requirement still in effect?
AFAIK, they demanded output at 720p, not rendering at that resolution. I've never heard about the 2xAA requirement though.
Or maybe they used the canned 960x1080 and scaled it via the SDK and the interpretations are incorrect. I'm not sure why Techmo would make their job harder for no gain. From the B3D article:
It's because of the inconsistencies along vertical edges, every couple of steps there are sections which appear more filtered than others. I think that has been caused by the frame being downscaled prior to being upscaled. If the frame was simply rendered at 960 and then upscaled to 1920 there would not be any unevenness to the edge:
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07325/ngs1080mode.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs318&d=07325&f=ngs1080mode.jpg)
That in my opinion can only be something introduced by downscaling a 1280 frame to 960 and then upscaling to 1920.
For example (we can forget about vertical scaling for now as it has negligible impact on vertical edges):
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07325/bilinear200pc.png
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07325/bilinear150pc.png
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07325/bilinear75pc200pc.png
Now, tell me which one that Ninja Gaiden Sigma edge looks most like.
AFAIK, they demanded output at 720p, not rendering at that resolution.
I don't see the point of this as Xenos can scale to any resolution anyway.
I've never heard about the 2xAA requirement though.
I think Joker said AA is mandatory, may not be through multisampling though.
Now, tell me which one that Ninja Gaiden Sigma edge looks most like.
Can't you guys post 720p vs 1080p NGS shots.
The ones posted by inefficient(?) certainly suggest scaling with preserved aspect ratio, that is both horizontal and vertical.
AFAIK, they demanded output at 720p, not rendering at that resolution.
That would clearly go against the spirit,if not the word of the proclamation.
A dev could make an really low res game and output it to HD,but I'm sure that's not what gamers expect when they buy into the "360 HD experience"
Now, tell me which one that Ninja Gaiden Sigma edge looks most like.
I see the same bleeding effect in the horizontal and vertical, could it be an artifact the display. Do we have any from the frame buffer (or was this one?)?
Oh sweet Jesus I give up trying.
StefanS
11-Aug-2007, 09:23
Oh sweet Jesus I give up trying.
Don't give up yet :razz: I think it looks remarkably similar to the pattern on your pic of NGS. But why on earth would Tecmo do scale from 1280 to 960 and then to 1920?
Don't give up yet :razz: I think it looks remarkably similar to the pattern on your pic of NGS. But why on earth would Tecmo do scale from 1280 to 960 and then to 1920?
You don't read b3d articles!!
StefanS
11-Aug-2007, 09:53
You don't read b3d articles!!
:lol: I've read Vy's scaler article. But why scale from 1280 -> 960? But why not render at 960 like everyone else? Forgive me, but NGS doesn't strike me as over-the-top gfx intensive that the impact from the marginal resolution increase should prevent it.
:lol: I've read Vy's scaler article. But why scale from 1280 -> 960? But why not render at 960 like everyone else? Forgive me, but NGS doesn't strike me as over-the-top gfx intensive that the impact from the marginal resolution increase should prevent it.
One reason might be simplicity, just render at 720p, no matter what's your target output resolution, then perform additional steps to scale the image to the proper resolution.
Don't give up yet :razz: I think it looks remarkably similar to the pattern on your pic of NGS. But why on earth would Tecmo do scale from 1280 to 960 and then to 1920?
But it's worse than that isn't it, there is not a 1280x1080, so they are going from 1280->960->1920, what are they doing in the vertical with the 720 lines? There is only supposed to be a horizontal scaler. Unless we are talking about a software scaling from 720P to 960x1080 and then a hardware horizontal scaling to 1080P, but that sounds like extra work with no pay off.
AlStrong
13-Aug-2007, 17:12
But it's worse than that isn't it, there is not a 1280x1080 (for obvious reasons), so they are going from 1280->960->1920, what are they doing in the vertical with the 720 lines? There is only supposed to be a horizontal scaler. Unless we are talking about a software scaling from 720P to 960x1080 and then a hardware horizontal scaling to 1080P, but that sounds like extra work with no pay off.
The options for devs were updated back in January:
Additional 1080 rendering modes also supported now include 1280x1080, 1440x1080 and 1600x1080. These modes, similar to 960x1080, are capable of being upscaled by the hardware into 1080p/i.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/16/2
The options for devs were updated back in January:
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/16/2
Thanks, I had been referencing that article, but I was looking at the bar chart that leaves off the 1280x1080 resolution. So why would they render at 1280x1080 just so they can down sample the 1280 to 960 and the hardware scale up to 1920? Why not start at 960 or go directly from 1280 to 1920 as the article suggest they can do?
It may have already been mentioned, but to make sure the television isn't scaling the signal itself, the television must be in a high-resolution mode which doesn't overscan the input signal.
I have two 1080p screens, a Phillips 42" and a Samsung 40" both which have these "high resolution" options available only in 1080p mode and they do not not allow for removal of overscan in 720p mode. So if you are looking at games even on a 1080p TV make sure it is in this mode so the image isn't additionally scaled.
I just played the demo of NG sigma and I noticed something interesting. If you hit the PS button you can tell that the system options are obviously scaled too.(never noticed it before in any other 1080p demo) I guess that will be my new test of seeing whether or not a game in running at full 1080p resolution.
AlStrong
16-Aug-2007, 16:22
An in-game multiplayer screenshot from Halo 3 (click to view larger image):
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/813/813197/halo-3-20070816054325865-000.jpg (http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/734/734817/img_4800158.html)
Barring the obvious image compression (damn you IGN!), there is clearly no AA. Looks like a 720p render to me.
iceberg187
16-Aug-2007, 18:28
An in-game multiplayer screenshot from Halo 3 (click to view larger image):
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/813/813197/halo-3-20070816054325865-000.jpg (http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/734/734817/img_4800158.html)
Barring the obvious image compression (damn you IGN!), there is clearly no AA. Looks like a 720p render to me.
I was just about to put this here and add that someone needs to fess up.
Mintmaster
17-Aug-2007, 22:13
If that's how the game's going to look in the end, I'm rather disappointed. A game of that budget and importance to MS really should have 4xAA, even if it means a slightly lower resolution and upscaling.
Fess up about what? The fact the MP beta was at 720P was discussed back on page two, the real discussion was about the SP graphics and the video from E3.
Proelite
18-Aug-2007, 01:22
Fess up about what? The fact the MP beta was at 720P was discussed back on page two, the real discussion was about the SP graphics and the video from E3.
Which was also debunked since the E3 segment was a cutscene cropped and scaled to be 16:9.
MonkeyLicker
18-Aug-2007, 04:58
it's still possible single- player will have anti-aliasing.
With Forge it's gonna be hard to tweak performance, so they might have just decided to not use AA on multi-player.
function
18-Aug-2007, 05:27
A big budget game can't be impressive now unless it uses 4x FSAA?
The overall effectiveness of a game's visuals is far more important than whether it meets a specific feature checkbox, whether it's for level of AA, FP colour depth, resolution or anything else.
The overall effectiveness of a game's visuals is far more important than whether it meets a specific feature checkbox, whether it's for level of AA, FP colour depth, resolution or anything else.
I totally agree, let's wait for the final version of this game to judge his 'overal effectiveness'...
TurnDragoZeroV2G
18-Aug-2007, 10:11
Regarding AA, one previewer who saw the game recently in Australia is claiming to have noticed that AA was turned on (I made a post that I'm too lazy to link to in the other Halo thread in the games section). Whether that's actually the case or not we'll still have to wait for our own retail copies, but there it is... here's to hoping.
If that's how the game's going to look in the end, I'm rather disappointed. A game of that budget and importance to MS really should have 4xAA, even if it means a slightly lower resolution and upscaling.
I'm not sure what the PS3 games have, (I was under the impression most PS3 [launch] games don't have any AA at all, yet from what I played so far (Resistance, Motorstorm, GT:HD 2.0), I couldn't make out any aliasing on a 720p beamer...
Apart from which resolution constitutes HD, didn't MS require 720p and 2x AA in all X360 games?
Maybe they didn't specify rendered in 720p vs. upscaled to 720p.
Is that requirement still in effect?
The TRC requires the game to be rendered in HD (1280x720 minimum) and to support techniques that alleviate aliasing (MSAA/SSAA, obviously, but also depth-of-field, motion blur, or any other technique that blur the edges).
2xMSAA was asked from devs in the early days of the XeDK, but tiling proved to be more complex to implement in many code bases (including first/second party titles) so that requirement was dropped and changed into what it is today.
With regard to the resolution, some games got away with lower resolution render targets because the developers/publishers politely asked MS if they could do so and MS couldn't answer by the negative to such eloquent queries. In other words, some developers/publishers have more leeway than others when it comes to TRCs. I think Fafalada recently talked about Konami and their dislike of the V-Sync technical requirement item for the PS2. These things happen...
By the way, and that's off-topic, this thread is insufferable for the most part. The ad-hominem nonsense coupled with the usual console allegiance confrontational posturing tells me that we'll have to apply a few change come this back-to-school season. I blame Stefan and Carl, for this... :evil:
I'm not sure what the PS3 games have, (I was under the impression most PS3 [launch] games don't have any AA at all, yet from what I played so far (Resistance, Motorstorm, GT:HD 2.0), I couldn't make out any aliasing on a 720p beamer...
IIRC Resistance uses 2x Quincunx AA, and GT:HD uses 2xMSAA when rendering in 720p. I believe Motorstorm uses 2xMSAA as well, but not for all surfaces.
IIRC Resistance uses 2x Quincunx AA, and GT:HD uses 2xMSAA when rendering in 720p. I believe Motorstorm uses 2xMSAA as well, but not for all surfaces.
You forgot HS! 4x AA ftw! :)
"Nerve-Damage"
19-Aug-2007, 04:33
You forgot HS! 4x AA ftw! :)
:cool:
MonkeyLicker
19-Aug-2007, 06:39
You forgot HS! 4x AA ftw! :)
I heard from a friend of a friend that HS doesn't have AA.
Take it as you will, but the friend in question knows a guy who knew Ken Kutiragis' niece.
She heard this info from a girl who wallpapered Ninja Theorys' bathrooms.
IIRC Resistance uses 2x Quincunx AA, and GT:HD uses 2xMSAA when rendering in 720p. I believe Motorstorm uses 2xMSAA as well, but not for all surfaces.
the best PS3 IQ = Full auto 2 demo in true Full HD 1920x1080 with MSAA x4 and aniso but.... 20fps
the best PS3 IQ = Full auto 2 demo in true Full HD 1920x1080 with MSAA x4 and aniso but.... 20fps
Well the demo is much better than 20fps and the reviews say it chugs less than the 360, so I assume you are exaggerating. I also doubt it has any AA at 1080P.
Well the demo is much better than 20fps and the reviews say it chugs less than the 360, so I assume you are exaggerating. I also doubt it has any AA at 1080P.
i confirm, Full auto 2 demo is true 1920x1080, msaa 4x, aniso, i am sure , very sure for this part (and yes it's surprising, for me too)
for framerate it's more difficult , the framerate is different for every video mode, for SD it's 1VBL (60fps), for 720p it's 1VBL 50% of the time and 2VBL (30fps) for other 50% and for 1080p it's diffcult to say, it's low, i think max 2VBL (30fps) and sometimes (or more) 3VBL (20fps) but it's more difficult to certify
i tested the demo not the game but for IQ it's the best PS3 example
I also doubt it has any AA at 1080P.
It really does, just downloaded and checked myself. 4xMSAA for both 1080p and 720p modes and native frame rendering. The difference in framerate between the two resolutions is quite comical though. Don't know how well that holds true for the retail version.
in the same way VT3 PS3 have msaa 2x in true 1920x1080 (60fps of course)
in the same way VT3 PS3 have msaa 2x in true 1920x1080 (60fps of course)
It's the same on Xbox360.
It's the same on Xbox360.
i will check myself soon ;)
i will check myself soon ;)
Here's a 1080p comparison: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/7/4/5/2/8/Virtua_Tennis_1_1080p.jpg
I think Resistance uses 4xAA.
Btw, how dose Motorstorm achieve AA and HDR at the same time... is it NAO 32?
I think Resistance uses 4xAA.
it's 2xAA
Btw, how dose Motorstorm achieve AA and HDR at the same time... is it NAO 32?
I have no idea, but keep in mind that there are so many ways to skin a cat..
Shifty Geezer
20-Aug-2007, 19:38
Remember the topic people! This isn't a comparison of titles across platforms thread. Keep to the topic off what games are upscaling and whether listed resolutions native or not. Especially as this is the technology forum!
The Full Auto 2 demo definitely does not look upscaled and feels like 25-35 fps @ 1080p.
AlStrong
21-Aug-2007, 06:04
I wonder if that shot isn't super old too because newer shots have a fourth type of grenade in the hud (upper left group of icons).
edit: it's not just that he hasn't picked up that particular grenade in that shot with the hunters. The fourth grenade type is still shown with a zero count as in below
http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1509/H3_MP_LastResort_FP1.jpg
I analyzed (with last samsung full HDTV with 1:1 mapping and good digital camera) all the PS3 demo with 1080p output
my result:
Blast Factor Demo > 1920x1080
Full Auto 2 Demo > 1920x1080 (MSAA x4)
GT-HD > 1440x1080 With 1920x1080 cars Selection
720p with MSAA x2 and SD with MSAA x4
NBA07 Demo > 1920x1080
Ninja Gaiden Sigma Demo > 1280x720
Ridge Racer 7 Demo > 1920x1080
Rub'a'dub Demo > 1600x1080
Stardust HD > 1280x1080 (fusion of 1280x720 with 1920x1080 :D )
The Darkness Demo > 1024x576
Virtua Tennis 3 Demo > 1920x1080 (MSAA 2x)
and i think Tekken5 and Calling all cars are 1920x1080 (but not tested) + the others which are not in demo...
i tested PGR3 with my "Elite" and it's 1066x600 with MSAA 2x
i tested PGR3 with my "Elite" and it's 1066x600 with MSAA 2x
sorry, i spoke too quickly, i thought that it was 16/9 but no, PGR3 is 1024x600 MSAA 2x
Tomb raider X360 is 1024x600 too (MSAA 2x)
RR6 is ~ 1440x810 no AA (probably for better using the 10MB framebuffer without use tiling)
Perfect Dark is ~ 1140x640 no AA
it is all the strange resolution which I tested in demo (i not tested all demo), the others are 1280x720
almighty
28-Aug-2007, 10:09
Can someone do a resolution test on Gears? Ive always wondered if Gears was native 720p or scaled.
AlStrong
28-Aug-2007, 15:25
Can someone do a resolution test on Gears? Ive always wondered if Gears was native 720p or scaled.
Joe Graf said they were rendering 960x720 (http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=24720819&postcount=8) in 4:3 mode, and also that they upscale (http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=24959156&postcount=2)from 720p (implying that's what they render at).
(He confirms it more explicitly here (http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=24626681&postcount=5))
Dave Glue
28-Aug-2007, 21:02
Yeah, Gears definitely looks 720p to me. No real surprise with TR:Legend there, as it certainly didn't look like 720p either.
Anyone tested Bioshock on the 360?
Anyone tested Bioshock on the 360?
1280x720p no AA
Dave Glue
28-Aug-2007, 22:41
1280x720p no AA
Thanks. Even with no AA that's pretty impressive, as without vsync the game seems to average close to 50fps (oh how I wish more console games would do this!).
Someone just brought to my attention that Warhawk has upscaling options, but like many titles which do the same, it will only implement them when you un-tick 720p from the list of supported resolutions.
I'm bumping this thread because (and, sorry, I'm too tired to present photographic evidence) I believe unlike NGS, this title does accurately scale from 720p to 1080p without any bizarre downscaling shenanigans.
i tested the harry potter PS3 demo and i observed a strange trick
the game is 1280x720 MSAA 2x for the 720p output but for the 1080p output they apparently mix the two 1280x720 MSAA samples buffers to one 2560x720 pixels framebuffer and rescale it to 1920x1080
Did anyone ever come up with the final resolution of Halo3?
"Nerve-Damage"
15-Sep-2007, 19:38
Did anyone ever come up with the final resolution of Halo3?
It most likely will be 1280x720p.
Given that Gears and UT3 are natively 720p and looks graphically better (IMO), Halo 3 shouldn’t have a problem handling 720p.
Blade47167
15-Sep-2007, 20:52
i tested the harry potter PS3 demo and i observed a strange trick
the game is 1280x720 MSAA 2x for the 720p output but for the 1080p output they apparently mix the two 1280x720 MSAA samples buffers to one 2560x720 pixels framebuffer and rescale it to 1920x1080
Can I ask how you find this out?
Can I ask how you find this out?
it is a little long to explain and I speak english very bad
i can only explain in French, sorry
Acert93
15-Sep-2007, 22:14
it is a little long to explain and I speak english very bad
i can only explain in French, sorry
There are fluent French posters here who can translate. So give it a go.
Just a quickie... The Tony Hawk's Proving Ground PS3 demo renders lower than 720p (in both vertical and horizontal), likely 960x540 or around that marker.
wowfactor
15-Sep-2007, 23:20
It most likely will be 1280x720p.
Given that Gears and UT3 are natively 720p and looks graphically better (IMO), Halo 3 shouldn’t have a problem handling 720p.
Gears was not rendered at 720p it was rendered at 960x720 which is 75% of full 720p resolution.
There are fluent French posters here who can translate. So give it a go.
en faite l'aliasing des edges donnent beaucoup d'informations notement sur la resolution native du rendu des jeux (merci l'aliasing pour une fois). Tout les steps de l'aliasing font forcement 1 pixel natif de haut sur les edge horisontaux (dans la limite ou l'edge n'est pas incliné de +/- 45°) et 1 pixel natif de large (+/- 45°) sur les edges verticaux. a partir de cette axiome il est facile de determiner la resolution native d'un jeux en determinant le ratio step/pixel-ecran.
bien sur pour cela il faut une TV Full HD 1920x1080 a matrice pour bien distinguer les pixels (moi c'est un LCD) et un mapping 1:1, et plutot grande de preference :)
ensuite a l'oeil (pour les ratios les plus simple) en se collant a l'ecran ou en utilisant un apareil photo numerique on arrive facilement a determiner les ratios (en faisant un comptage de pixel sur 10 ou 20 steps si il le faut pour les resolutions natives les plus etrange qui ont des ratios compliqués)
au final on arrive tres bien a retrouver la resolution native des jeux (sauf si le jeux est excessivement bluré mais j'ai pas eu de cas de la sorte), aussi bien les resolutions inferieurs a celle de l'ecran que celles qui sont superieurs (pour les resolutions superieurs faut rester dans une limite raisonable inferieur a x2 sinon y a risque de confusion avec du MSAA ). j'ai dailleurs determiné la resolution native de pas mal de jeux PS3 et X360 de cette facon (que j'ai deja posté dans ce topic precedement)
maintenant pour ce qui concerne plus particulierement le cas Harry Potter j'ai tout de suite constaté quelque chose de bisarre...
sur les edges verticaux je trouvais un ratio 4/3 ce qui donne une resolution native horisontal de 2560 pixels (c'etait la premiere fois que je tombais sur un ratio superieur a 1) et sur les edges horisontaux je trouvais un classic ratio 2/3 qui donne 720 lignes donc je constatais sans ambiguité une resolution native de 2560x720 mais bien sure je comprenais pas ce choix. qu'elle serait l'interet d'utiliser un frame buffer comme ca qui necessite en plus un rescale software plutot qu'un simple buffer 1920x1080 et surtout j'avais constaté que quand je sortais le jeux en 720p j'avais donc bien du 1280x720p avec MSAA 2x et le framerate etait deja faible et instable donc je ne voyais pas comment ils auraient pu proposer une resolution 2 fois superieur sans plus de probleme sur le framerate.
et puis surtout y avait un detail tres suprenant qui m'intriguait beaucoup c'etait ces pointillés qu'il y avait sur les edges horisontaux a l'endroit ou normalement on observe le MSAA. c'est la que j'ai pensé a cette idée d'utiliser les 2 buffers de sample MSAA du mode 720p comme un seul framebuffer 2560x720 qui serait ensuite rescalé en 1920x1080 et quand j'ai simulé cette idée j'ai retrouvé exactement ce que j'observais sur les screens de Harry Potter (notement ces pointillés tres distinct et significatif sur les edges horisontaux) et donc l'expliquation etait evidement celle ci.
au final les edges du jeux en 1080p donne l'impression d'une resolution native de 2560x720 mais la surface des polygones (shaders/textures) ne propose rien de plus que du 1280x720, et on a en bonus ce semblant d'effet MSAA x2 en ordered grid vertical (donc sur les edges horisontaux) sous forme de pointillé (comme si c'etait de l'alpha coverage)
difficile de dire si c'est vraiment preferable au simple mode 720p avec un veritable MSAA mais ca a le merite d'etre original
Gears was not rendered at 720p it was rendered at 960x720 which is 75% of full 720p resolution.
That's for 4:3 http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1056298&postcount=201
Gears is 720p (1280x720) native.
Just a quickie... The Tony Hawk's Proving Ground PS3 demo renders lower than 720p (in both vertical and horizontal), likely 960x540 or around that marker.
i tested, i confirm it's not 720p
i find 5/9 ratio for horizontal and vertical, for me it's 1067x600
Laa-Yosh
16-Sep-2007, 01:35
Gears was not rendered at 720p it was rendered at 960x720 which is 75% of full 720p resolution.
WTF??
i tested, i confirm it's not 720p
i find 5/9 ratio for horizontal and vertical, for me it's 1067x600
but "pixel junk racers" is true 1920x1080 :D
Gears was not rendered at 720p it was rendered at 960x720 which is 75% of full 720p resolution.
junior members
wowfactor
16-Sep-2007, 04:18
well I forgot to add 4:3. No big deal.
well I forgot to add 4:3. No big deal.
wha?
You were implying that Gears renders at 960*720 for HD output (which is always 16:9).
What it actually does is render at 1280*720 for HD output (scaling for 1080i/p), and render at 960*720 then scale down for SD output, rather than render at the usual 640*480, presumably as they can spare the fillrate easily, and it lets them use the scaler as a low-tech SSAA solution.
"No big deal."
*snip snip snip* [aka, butchered below]« In fact [in being made?], edge aliasing gives a lot of information about a game's native rendering resolution (thank aliasing, for once). All of the aliased steps are forced to make one native pixel height on horizontal edges (provided the edge isn't inclined +/- 45°) and one native pixel wide (+/- 45°) on vertical edges. From this axiom it's easy to determine a game's native resolution by determining the ratio of steps to screen pixels. [How soon we forget one's singular methodology. ;)]
Of course, for this one needs a full HD 1920x1080 matrix TV to distinguish the pixels well ([for] me, it's an LCD) and 1:1 mapping, and the bigger the better. :)
Then, with an eye stuck to the screen (for the simpler ratios) or using a digital [?] camera one can easily determine the ratios (by doing a pixel count for 10 or 20 steps if necessary for the stranger native resolutions with complex ratios). Finally, one arrives very well to find the game's native res (except if the game is excessively blurred, but I haven't had a case of the sort), the resolutions lower than the screen's as well as those higher (the higher resolutions have to stay within a limit reasonably lower than 2x or else there's a risk of confusion with MSAA). I have elsewhere determined the native res of quite a few [?] PS3 and 360 games in this way (which I've already posted in this preceding [?] thread).
Now, for that which concerns more specifically the Harry Potter case I immediately noticed something bizarre...
On the vertical edges I found a 4/3 ratio which yields a native horizontal res of 2560 pixels (this was the first time I fell upon a ratio greater than one) and on the horizontal edges I found a class 2/3 ratio which gives 720 lines thus I noted [gg, Google] without ambiguity a native res of 2560x720 but of course I didn't understand this choice. [*huge breath*] What good would it do to use a frame buffer like this which requires an additional software rescale on top of a simple 1080p buffer and above all I'd noted that when I tried the game in 720p I thus had a good [?] 720p with 2xMSAA and the framerate was already weak and unstable so I don't see how they would try to propose a resolution two times greater without more framerate problems. [*passes out*]
And then on top of that it had a very surprising detail which intrigued me greatly[.] There were these dotted lines which were on horizontal edges at the spot where one would normally observe MSAA. That's where I thought of this idea of using two 720p MSAA buffers as a single 2560x720 framebuffer which would ultimately rescale in 1080p and when I simulated this idea I found exactly what I observed on the Harry Potter screens (notably these very distinct dotted lines and only [?] on horizontal edges) and so the explanation was evidently this one. [Insert joke alluding to run-on sentences here.]
To conclude [?], the game edges in 1080p give the impression of a native 2560x720 resolution but the surface of polygons (shaders/textures) doesn't propose anything more than 720p, and one has in bonus the pretence of a 2x vertical ordered grid (thus on horizontal edges) MSAA effect under the form of dotted lines (as if it were alpha coverage).
Difficult to say if it's truly preferable to simple mode 720p with a true MSAA but it has the distinction of being original. »
Acert93
16-Sep-2007, 11:46
Given that Gears and UT3 are natively 720p and looks graphically better (IMO), Halo 3 shouldn’t have a problem handling 720p.
Gears was not rendered at 720p it was rendered at 960x720 which is 75% of full 720p resolution.
We all make mistakes, but could be tone down the banter/jump-at-any-oppurtunity mindset? Even if your forgot to add "4:3" to your comment, your post makes no sense. Different Aspect ratios and different display resolutions (like SD) tend to have different render resolutions than 720p display targets. As a friendly suggestion, I would ask that you take a deep breath and post with a little less tilt. It will have a great impact on your post quality and the responses you receive from the B3D communituy :smile:
« In fact [in being made?], edge aliasing gives a lot of information about a game's native rendering resolution (thank aliasing, for once). All of the aliased steps are forced to make one native pixel height on horizontal edges (provided the edge isn't inclined +/- 45°) and one native pixel wide (+/- 45°) on vertical edges. From this axiom it's easy to determine a game's native resolution by determining the ratio of steps to screen pixels. [How soon we forget one's singular methodology. ;)]
Of course, for this one needs a full HD 1920x1080 matrix TV to distinguish the pixels well ([for] me, it's an LCD) and 1:1 mapping, and the bigger the better. :)
Then, with an eye stuck to the screen (for the simpler ratios) or using a digital [?] camera one can easily determine the ratios (by doing a pixel count for 10 or 20 steps if necessary for the stranger native resolutions with complex ratios). Finally, one arrives very well to find the game's native res (except if the game is excessively blurred, but I haven't had a case of the sort), the resolutions lower than the screen's as well as those higher (the higher resolutions have to stay within a limit reasonably lower than 2x or else there's a risk of confusion with MSAA). I have elsewhere determined the native res of quite a few [?] PS3 and 360 games in this way (which I've already posted in this preceding [?] thread).
Now, for that which concerns more specifically the Harry Potter case I immediately noticed something bizarre...
On the vertical edges I found a 4/3 ratio which yields a native horizontal res of 2560 pixels (this was the first time I fell upon a ratio greater than one) and on the horizontal edges I found a class 2/3 ratio which gives 720 lines thus I noted [gg, Google] without ambiguity a native res of 2560x720 but of course I didn't understand this choice. [*huge breath*] What good would it do to use a frame buffer like this which requires an additional software rescale on top of a simple 1080p buffer and above all I'd noted that when I tried the game in 720p I thus had a good [?] 720p with 2xMSAA and the framerate was already weak and unstable so I don't see how they would try to propose a resolution two times greater without more framerate problems. [*passes out*]
And then on top of that it had a very surprising detail which intrigued me greatly[.] There were these dotted lines which were on horizontal edges at the spot where one would normally observe MSAA. That's where I thought of this idea of using two 720p MSAA buffers as a single 2560x720 framebuffer which would ultimately rescale in 1080p and when I simulated this idea I found exactly what I observed on the Harry Potter screens (notably these very distinct dotted lines and only [?] on horizontal edges) and so the explanation was evidently this one. [Insert joke alluding to run-on sentences here.]
To conclude [?], the game edges in 1080p give the impression of a native 2560x720 resolution but the surface of polygons (shaders/textures) doesn't propose anything more than 720p, and one has in bonus the pretence of a 2x vertical ordered grid (thus on horizontal edges) MSAA effect under the form of dotted lines (as if it were alpha coverage).
Difficult to say if it's truly preferable to simple mode 720p with a true MSAA but it has the distinction of being original. »
thanks http://playstar.cinebb.com/users/68/32/85/smiles/508937.gif
to illustrate my post
http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/harrytrick.jpg
Skate PS3 is 1080p output but not true 1080p, it's ~1536x864 and no AA (the X360 version is 720p but with AA and better filtering)
other observation...
for the PS3 version of Sega Rally the vegetation is alpha blend (better) but alpha coverage in X360 version
for Colin McRae Dirt it's the reverse (PS3 vegetation is alpha coverage and X360 version is alpa blend)
strange...
Mintmaster
22-Sep-2007, 19:50
Quaz, that's a good diagram. A couple of suggestions:
- You should draw a V shape in there too. The near horizontal and near vertical test lines suggest that this 2xAA pattern is as good as an ordered grid 4xAA pattern
- In the "mix of two MSAA buffers" case, it's better to use 960x1080 buffers w/ 2xAA and expand it to 1080p
Maybe I'll make my own chart. There was another thread where we made extensive comparisons of this sort using a test screenshot, but I can't remember which one right now.
AlStrong
22-Sep-2007, 20:57
Maybe I'll make my own chart. There was another thread where we made extensive comparisons of this sort using a test screenshot, but I can't remember which one right now.
Good luck finding it in the Lair thread. ;)
Quaz, that's a good diagram. A couple of suggestions:
- You should draw a V shape in there too. The near horizontal and near vertical test lines suggest that this 2xAA pattern is as good as an ordered grid 4xAA pattern
it's a MSAA 2x with rotated grid of course and the diagram is in conformity with this, just to compare this type of line where appear the harry potter artifact
- In the "mix of two MSAA buffers" case, it's better to use 960x1080 buffers w/ 2xAA and expand it to 1080p
Maybe I'll make my own chart. There was another thread where we made extensive comparisons of this sort using a test screenshot, but I can't remember which one right now.
I just want to show the strange method use in Harry Potter, I'm not convinced myself with this method, i agree with you for 960x1080 buffer alternative (that need some additional pixel but avoid software upscale) or just no 1080p mode (720p mode with TV upscale)
[maven]
23-Sep-2007, 13:15
Has anyone actually taken the Halo 3 final release apart (as quite a few people — me not included :( — have gotten the retail version already) and counted sloped pixels to figure out which resolution it is running at?
And thanks for those comparisons from multi-platform games, Quaz.
Acert93
23-Sep-2007, 16:43
;1068485']Has anyone actually taken the Halo 3 final release apart (as quite a few people — me not included :( — have gotten the retail version already) and counted sloped pixels to figure out which resolution it is running at?
And thanks for those comparisons from multi-platform games, Quaz.
A Polish review someone translated mentioned no AA, so it is almost surely 720p. Kind of sad after they had MSAA in the E3 2006 trailer (this is the engine) and the talk of even 1080p recently.
;1068485']Has anyone actually taken the Halo 3 final release apart (as quite a few people — me not included :( — have gotten the retail version already) and counted sloped pixels to figure out which resolution it is running at?
tuesday for me
AlStrong
23-Sep-2007, 18:28
Kind of sad after they had MSAA in the E3 2006 trailer (this is the engine) and the talk of even 1080p recently.
From what I could tell there was no AA in a lot of places during the trailer. There's a bunch of trickery with the smoke and bloom in the first half of the trailer, but there are definite signs of polygon edge aliasing. Also keep in mind that the trailer was mostly shades of brown :p
That 1080p @60fps thing was just some silly wishful thinking. Frankie talked about it in one of their updates, debunking it.
There is a lot of brown in the trailer, but plenty of AA to as well.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/10454.html
Laa-Yosh
23-Sep-2007, 21:49
Gamespot review screenshots indicate absolutely no AA and AF. A bit of a disappointment - if the flagship game can't have them, others will probably be lacking in these too.
Edit: though it looks like they've done something with the gamma, screens are way too bright.
A shot from blim:
http://images.gamersyde.com/misc/h3aa/h3_2.jpg
Not exactly high quality and seemingly from captured video but at least not from Halo 3 screenshot tool.
No comment :)
AlStrong
23-Sep-2007, 23:14
There is a lot of brown in the trailer, but plenty of AA to as well.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/10454.html
On the landscapes I find a bunch of jaggies, especially when the camera turns with the capital ship coming onto screen. Of course, that's when you don't watch the 640x360 version. ;)
If you watch the actual 720p footage off of bungie, the aliasing is a lot clearer. Gametrailers has somehow taken to calling 640*360 HD even when you download them. :|
edit: That's not to say it was glaringly obvious. It was when I was doing frame-by-frame analysis in a far-fetched search for story secrets that I realized there wasn't AA (at least on everything). The Chief manages to escape that for the most part as he walks by.
I tested Halo3 and.... not 720p :shock: it's exactly the same resolution that perfect dark, ~1138x640 with no AA, no aniso (and 30fps) :shock:
Why? HDR FP16 and no tiling ?
Dunno why but overall you have 27% less pixels to shade than you'd have rendering a 720p image, which can be a good thing if you're limited by pixel shaders.
At 12 bytes per pixel (8 + 4) it also nicely fits in edram..
I tested Halo3 and.... not 720p :shock: it's exactly the same resolution that perfect dark, ~1138x640 with no AA, no aniso (and 30fps) :shock:
Thanks for the confirmation, the picture I posted is similarly upscaled.
Can you please check the screenshot tool's output, particularly its native resolution and AA?
AlStrong
26-Sep-2007, 16:03
The screenshot tool outputs 1080p (mentioned on bungie.net). No idea on AA.
Laa-Yosh
26-Sep-2007, 16:33
I tested Halo3 and.... not 720p :shock: it's exactly the same resolution that perfect dark, ~1138x640 with no AA, no aniso (and 30fps) :shock:
Why? HDR FP16 and no tiling ?
How do you explain the screenshots released with reviews two days ago? Most of them (with the exception of shots created with the builtin tool) are 1280*720p native resolution, with an obvious lack of AA and AF. Are these supposed to be a new kind of bullshot then?
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/734/734817/img_4911249.html
Well..those screenshots don't have post processing motion blur (btw..they don't use any velocity buffer as only camera movements generate blur)
Laa-Yosh
26-Sep-2007, 16:42
Someone said there's no motion blur in the game at all... and it makes 30fps a lot more noticeable then in Bioshock and Gears...
Laa-Yosh
26-Sep-2007, 16:46
no idea, I have to read those slides.
btw I would call the 10 bits per component format (low accuracy) MDR..not LDR :)
Looks at least as good, if not better, then HS, though... ;)
Laa-Yosh
26-Sep-2007, 16:47
By the way I've been thinking about the technology issues with Halo3, and realized that Halo1 and 2 weren't really technology showcases for the first Xbox either...
Someone said there's no motion blur in the game at all... and it makes 30fps a lot more noticeable then in Bioshock and Gears...
I trust my eyes more than what ppl say, halo3 has 'camera' motion blur.
They probably read back the depth from the z buffer, from it they derive a world space position of that point and they apply the camera matrix from the previous frame(s)
After that they project it to screen space and they compute a velocity vector for that pixel of the fly and they blur accordingly.
How do you explain the screenshots released with reviews two days ago? Most of them (with the exception of shots created with the builtin tool) are 1280*720p native resolution, with an obvious lack of AA and AF. Are these supposed to be a new kind of bullshot then?
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/734/734817/img_4911249.html
this screenshots are probably created with screenshot tool
the game is not 720p, it's 640p, i'm sure, i checked and counted 5 or 6 times on various photos
AlStrong
26-Sep-2007, 16:55
What game would you say pushed the Xbox hardware, Laa-Yosh?
I trust my eyes more than what ppl say, halo3 has 'camera' motion blur.
It's pretty subtle I think. You have to turn really quickly to get the effect. In Blim's (Gamersyde) 10 minute Halo 3 video, one can pause and see definite motion blur -> background trees blurred whereas the assault rifle is clear.
By the way I've been thinking about the technology issues with Halo3, and realized that Halo1 and 2 weren't really technology showcases for the first Xbox either...
True but that's not going to stop B3D! :lol:
Halo games are all about balanced/awesome gameplay, multiplayer, and story.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.