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 27-Sep-2007, 13:35   #276
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joker454 View Post
Hmm that's weird, I would have expected the opposite situation.
yes it's surprising, it's the opposite situation in "collin McRae Dirt"

Last edited by Quaz51; 27-Sep-2007 at 15:35.
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 13:37   #277
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almighty View Post
Call Of Duty 3 and Tony Hawks are then 720p aswel.

i not tested this games (and no demo on the XBL)
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 14:15   #278
Shifty Geezer
uber-Troll!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under my bridge
Posts: 30,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaz51 View Post
one exemple of halo3 edge (i tested several edge with the same result) on my 1080p TV with 1:1 mapping (Samsung "just scan" mode)

http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/Halo3nativereso.jpg

it's the same result that Perfect dark
i tested approximately sixty of X360 games (and lot of PS3 games too ), all are 720p except two 1080p (VT3 and NBA street), two 600p (PGR3 and Tomb Raider) and Two 640p (Perfect Dark and Halo3)
Just want to say thanks for these investigations. They must have taken a whole and made your eyes go all funny, but they're very appreciated for discussing upscaling. +rep!
__________________
Shifty Geezer
...
Flashing Samsung mobile firmwares. Know anything about this? Then please advise me at -
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1862910
Shifty Geezer is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 15:01   #279
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

I tested the cinema mode and the screenshot tool of the game. I saw (thanks for the "pause mode" on my TV) that they cumulate 49 frames (7x7 grid) for those oversampling screenshots = little more that 17 samples per pixel for the 1080 output screenshot

Last edited by Quaz51; 27-Sep-2007 at 15:56.
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 15:30   #280
Todd33
Naughty Boy!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaz51 View Post

it's the same result that Perfect dark
i tested approximately sixty X360 games (and lot of PS3 games too ), all are 720p except two 1080p (VT3 and NBA street), two 600p (PGR3 and Tomb Raider) and Two 640p (Perfect Dark and Halo3)
Nice work, keep up the investigation!
__________________
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 27-Sep-2007, 16:55   #281
Acert93
Artist formerly known as Acert93
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,807
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaz51 View Post
one exemple of halo3 edge (i tested several edge with the same result) on my 1080p TV with 1:1 mapping (Samsung "just scan" mode)

http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/Halo3nativereso.jpg

it's the same result that Perfect dark (ratio 16/27 for 1080 display or 8/9 ratio for 720 display)
i tested approximately sixty X360 games (and lot of PS3 games too ), all are 720p except two 1080p (VT3 and NBA street), two 600p (PGR3 and Tomb Raider) and Two 640p (Perfect Dark and Halo3)


EDIT: the context of the preceding Halo3 edge photo
http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/Hal...esocontext.jpg
it's an edge of the sniper rifle
Thanks for your time and effort Quaz! Nice pics describing how you do this.
__________________
"In games I don't like, there is no such thing as "tradeoffs," only "downgrades" or "lazy devs" or "bugs" or "design failures." Neither do tradeoffs exist in games I'm a rabid fan of, and just shut up if you're going to point them out." -- fearsomepirate
Acert93 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 19:06   #282
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by betan View Post
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

it's much less relevant and more difficult but we can also check it on this true blimblim output screenshot

http://images.gamersyde.com/misc/h3aa/h3_2.jpg

http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/Halo3nativereso2.jpg

Last edited by Quaz51; 27-Sep-2007 at 19:22.
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 19:43   #283
betan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaz51 View Post
it's much less relevant and more difficult but we can also check it on this true blimblim output screenshot

http://images.gamersyde.com/misc/h3aa/h3_2.jpg

http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/Halo3nativereso2.jpg
That's what I meant in my previous post.
BTW that's the exact same place I did the counting.

I also checked the latest 10 min video from blim which easily confirms upscaling (high quality) in case people are still in doubt, but the reason I posted the first screenshot was that it was confirmed to be outside of Bungie's knowledge, and blim's independent doing.
betan is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 19:44   #284
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

another example of Halo3 upscale with another personal photo of the game

http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/Halo3nativereso3.jpg

More?
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 19:54   #285
Laa-Yosh
member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,459
Default

I think you've made your point, and it's quite convincing. So, I wonder if someone could corner Frankie on GAF about this issue...

And I think we have to apologize to one, he was right about this.
__________________
My opinions do not represent that of my employer blah blah etc.

Last edited by Laa-Yosh; 27-Sep-2007 at 20:01.
Laa-Yosh is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 20:02   #286
Dave Glue
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintmaster View Post
On the other hand, if Alstrong is right about Halo using two 32bpp render targets (though I can't understand what they'd need them for), 1164x640 makes perfect sense. Very disappointing, though.
NO ITS NOT MY HDTV GIVES NO JAGGIES YOU HATER

That would explain what I'm seeing - Halo3 looks lower res than other top-tied 360 games (like Bioshock, although the environments are quite different so it's a little tough to compare). It has a very "fuzzy" look to it, similar to say, Transformers - like it's using a constant back buffer lower than the screen res (which I assume is basically what you're saying, not really up to speed on the rendering methods).

But jeez - 1164x640 - that's less pixels than 1024x768! I think if someone said around the 360' launch that Halo3 would be running at a res lower than 1024x768, with no AA & bilinear filtering, and still only reach 30fps - they would have been dismissed as insane. I just would have expected more on a technical level after 3 years.
Dave Glue is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 20:06   #287
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Glue View Post
NO ITS NOT MY HDTV GIVES NO JAGGIES YOU HATER

That would explain what I'm seeing - Halo3 looks lower res than other top-tied 360 games (like Bioshock, although the environments are quite different so it's a little tough to compare). It has a very "fuzzy" look to it, similar to say, Transformers - like it's using a constant back buffer lower than the screen res (which I assume is basically what you're saying, not really up to speed on the rendering methods).

But jeez - 1164x640 - that's less pixels than 1024x768! I think if someone said around the 360' launch that Halo3 would be running at a res lower than 1024x768, with no AA & bilinear filtering, and still only reach 30fps - they would have been dismissed as insane. I just would have expected more on a technical level after 3 years.
it's ~1138x640 not 1164x640
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 20:35   #288
AlNets
Posts may self-destruct
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In a Mirror Darkly
Posts: 15,177
Default

Quaz, could you also check the 480p mode too? I'm wondering if they're still rendering at 640p or doing 480p.
__________________
"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 27-Sep-2007, 20:41   #289
kyleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,165
Default

Thanks for the pic Quaz. I thought it looked a bit low res but I just recently got a different TV so I'm not quite accustomed guestimating the rendering resolution yet, but that pic pretty well settles it.

And Al, I checked 480p earlier today just to see if they might of gone for a lower rendering resolution with AA there, but best I can tell it was only softer due to downsampling.
kyleb is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 20:51   #290
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlStrong View Post
Quaz, could you also check the 480p mode too? I'm wondering if they're still rendering at 640p or doing 480p.
it's more difficult because with 480p input I have overscan on my TV ("just scan" mode is only for 1080p et 720p input) but i know the percentage of overscan (with test pattern). I can do it but tomorrow
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 20:52   #291
AlNets
Posts may self-destruct
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In a Mirror Darkly
Posts: 15,177
Default

Thanks guys.
__________________
"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 27-Sep-2007, 21:22   #292
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

just a last picture (created with Mspaint ) to explain that:
one step aliasing = always one native pixel high (provided the edge isn't inclined more that 45°)

http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/Halo3nativereso4.jpg



PS: sorry once again for my english, i'm french and i speak english very bad
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 21:29   #293
broodjeaap
Registered
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4
Default

lol how do people come up with this crap...
The amount of hops in jagged lines has NOTHING to do with the resolution its being rendered at.
The little formula that was made up is bullcrap and calculates an almost random number (depending on witch line you choose to us it with, and how much pixels you take from that line).
And even then, some one decided to add the number 720 to the formula, how the hell is that relevant to the whole thing.

Now I just bumped in to this thread and just laughed, but I would like to know how people figured out this formula, could someone explain it?
broodjeaap is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 21:42   #294
kyleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,165
Default

The preface to your question makes for a rather poor start here.
kyleb is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 21:43   #295
broodjeaap
Registered
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Yeah I thought about that, but its insane that this went on for 12 pages and more then a month.
broodjeaap is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 21:43   #296
Dave Glue
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broodjeaap View Post
lol how do people come up with this crap...
The amount of hops in jagged lines has NOTHING to do with the resolution its being rendered at.
The little formula that was made up is bullcrap and calculates an almost random number (depending on witch line you choose to us it with, and how much pixels you take from that line).
And even then, some one decided to add the number 720 to the formula, how the hell is that relevant to the whole thing.

Now I just bumped in to this thread and just laughed, but I would like to know how people figured out this formula, could someone explain it?
So...you don't understand the method, but you're sure it's "crap" and you're "laughing at it".

If you want it explained, read further back.

Before you want to slam something, it's probably best to understand it first, less you come off looking like a complete imbecile.
Dave Glue is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 21:44   #297
Strange
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 1,251
Send a message via MSN to Strange
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broodjeaap View Post
lol how do people come up with this crap...
The amount of hops in jagged lines has NOTHING to do with the resolution its being rendered at.
The little formula that was made up is bullcrap and calculates an almost random number (depending on witch line you choose to us it with, and how much pixels you take from that line).
And even then, some one decided to add the number 720 to the formula, how the hell is that relevant to the whole thing.

Now I just bumped in to this thread and just laughed, but I would like to know how people figured out this formula, could someone explain it?
Obviously some guy from N4G or some other website coming to bash this thread that has no idea of the background of most of the people here.
I would suggest to ignore this post and continue analyzing


go on... nothing to see here


PS. Great info, thanks for the screenshots and the analysis.
Strange is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 21:50   #298
Dave Glue
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broodjeaap View Post
Yeah I thought about that, but its insane that this went on for 12 pages and more then a month.
Why? It's in the technical forum, and the information is obviously closely guarded by developers (or publishers/MS) so it's not as simple as asking them what resolution the game runs at. Thankfully Quaz donated his time and skill to cut through the BS and show us what resolution these games are actually running at. If you don't care, then why the fuck are you reading this?

Oh wait - you didn't. You just skipped to the last page to announce to basically say "LOL I DUNNO GET IT WTF LOL".

No one is saying this has a large impact on the games you want to play - but it should hardly be shocking that the technical merits of games for a particular platform are discussed on a technical forum dedicated to 3d video hardware.

You're off to one hell of a start here.
Dave Glue is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 21:50   #299
Shifty Geezer
uber-Troll!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under my bridge
Posts: 30,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broodjeaap View Post
lol how do people come up with this crap...
The amount of hops in jagged lines has NOTHING to do with the resolution its being rendered at.
The little formula that was made up is bullcrap and calculates an almost random number (depending on witch line you choose to us it with, and how much pixels you take from that line).
And even then, some one decided to add the number 720 to the formula, how the hell is that relevant to the whole thing.

Now I just bumped in to this thread and just laughed, but I would like to know how people figured out this formula, could someone explain it?
As a keen 3D technology forum, a lot of forum members are pretty clued up on 3D rendering, and Quaz51's investigations are very appropriate and informative. In a 1:1 display, he's counting the number of steps in a line where each step is one rendered pixel, and dividing that by the number of screen pixels, to determine the rendered pixel:screen pixel ratio.

His findings show quite accurately what resolution H3 (and other investigated titles on both platforms) is rendered at.

At this point, I hope you have the decency to both accept the findings and apologize for your outburst. Otherwise if you just want to poo-poo technical investigations on this technical forum, you won't be staying here very long
__________________
Shifty Geezer
...
Flashing Samsung mobile firmwares. Know anything about this? Then please advise me at -
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1862910
Shifty Geezer is offline  
Old 27-Sep-2007, 22:14   #300
broodjeaap
Registered
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Oke maybe I went on a rant there, sorry about that.

But this is one thing that confused the hell out of me.



Where does the 18 pixels come from?
If you count them horizontally you get something around 240 (16 hops x 15 pixels per hop) so this would be 720/240x16 = 48.
If it's 18 pixels per hop then...
and vertically doesn't make any sense at all.
broodjeaap 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 07:18.


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