Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 
Old 03-Aug-2007, 16:08   #1
mrcorbo
Foo Fighter
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,829
Default The Neverending Upscale Discussion Thread * Summary=#457

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcorbo View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by one View Post
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.
__________________
My 3D Odyssey:
TNT->GeForce256->GeForce2 GTS->GeForce 3->GeForce 4200 Ti->Radeon 9800SE(softmod)->GeForce 6600GT->Radeon X1800XL->Geforce 8800GT ->Radeon HD 4870->Radeon HD 6970 *Now Playing*
mrcorbo is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 16:11   #2
Qroach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,868
Default

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.
__________________
Vince: "Nobody gives a damn about graphics, we're well into a point of diminishing returns with respect to current TV limitations, and even with HDTV, the average consumer won't notice a diffrence between PS3 and XBX2."
Qroach is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 16:17   #3
scooby_dooby
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: E-town, Alberta
Posts: 8,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one View Post
It's vastly different from the actual game, though.
No. That shot looks exactly like the Beta looked.
scooby_dooby is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 16:22   #4
Rangers
Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,460
Default

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.
Rangers is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 16:42   #5
Todd33
Naughty Boy!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangers View Post
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?
__________________
Xbox 360, PS3 and PC gamer. This is Hi-Fi... high fidelity. What that means is that it's the highest quality fidelity.
Todd33 is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 17:00   #6
Rangers
Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd33 View Post
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.
Rangers is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 17:14   #7
Todd33
Naughty Boy!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangers View Post
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.
__________________
Xbox 360, PS3 and PC gamer. This is Hi-Fi... high fidelity. What that means is that it's the highest quality fidelity.
Todd33 is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 17:20   #8
Cheezdoodles
+ 1
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangers View Post
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'm going to get rich when i figure out how to stab people over the internet"
Cheezdoodles is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 19:30   #9
Phil
wipEout bastard
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 4,208
Send a message via ICQ to Phil
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangers View Post
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.
__________________
above 6000 rpm no one hears you scream
Phil is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 20:50   #10
kyleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,165
Default

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.
kyleb is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 20:58   #11
MonkeyLicker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 129
Default

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.
MonkeyLicker is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 22:53   #12
Mintmaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warb View Post
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.
Mintmaster is offline  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 23:53   #13
Cyan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepblue View Post
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
__________________
TWILIGHT movies are some of the best ever! Edward & Bella forever. Powered by ATi. Antje Traue is the most beautiful woman who has ever graced the world & the universe! Antje Traue -Faora-Ul in Superman- interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hnyQtoHYvg
Cyan is offline  
Old 04-Aug-2007, 01:17   #14
MonkeyLicker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintmaster View Post
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.
MonkeyLicker is offline  
Old 04-Aug-2007, 01:45   #15
AlNets
Posts may self-destruct
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In a Mirror Darkly
Posts: 15,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintmaster View Post
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)
__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Never scale-up, never sub-render!
(╯□)╯︵ □ Flipquad
AlNets is offline  
Old 04-Aug-2007, 01:46   #16
RobertR1
Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyLicker View Post
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.
RobertR1 is offline  
Old 04-Aug-2007, 01:52   #17
MonkeyLicker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR1 View Post
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.
MonkeyLicker is offline  
Old 04-Aug-2007, 03:00   #18
PARANOiA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,086
Send a message via ICQ to PARANOiA Send a message via MSN to PARANOiA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyLicker View Post
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.
__________________
Never trust a vegetarian who smokes
PARANOiA is offline  
Old 05-Aug-2007, 01:51   #19
MonkeyLicker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 129
Default

Stinkles made a comment on the upscaling issue.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...postcount=2990

Since the Beta ran at 720p I guess that settles that.
MonkeyLicker is offline  
Old 05-Aug-2007, 02:02   #20
NRP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

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.
NRP is offline  
Old 05-Aug-2007, 05:03   #21
betan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NRP View Post
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.
betan is offline  
Old 05-Aug-2007, 08:36   #22
Tap In
Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Gravity Always Wins
Posts: 6,381
Default

Quote:
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...postcount=2990

holy crap ML, you (via ONE) managed to piss off Frankie.

I guess that settles that indeed.
Tap In is offline  
Old 05-Aug-2007, 14:56   #23
AlNets
Posts may self-destruct
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In a Mirror Darkly
Posts: 15,193
Default

Wouldn't it be just rad if Frankie mentioned it in the next podcast? Maybe if he's angry enough he'll actually confirm the resolution.
__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Never scale-up, never sub-render!
(╯□)╯︵ □ Flipquad
AlNets is offline  
Old 05-Aug-2007, 23:37   #24
MonkeyLicker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tap In View Post
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...postcount=2990

holy crap ML, you (via ONE) managed to piss off Frankie.

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.
MonkeyLicker is offline  
Old 06-Aug-2007, 04:34   #25
one
Unruly Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minato-ku, Tokyo
Posts: 4,702
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tap In View Post
Quote:
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...postcount=2990

holy crap ML, you (via ONE) managed to piss off Frankie.

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:
Quote:
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

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
one is offline  

 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:54.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.