[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by joker454

Hmm that's weird, I would have expected the opposite situation.

yes it's surprising, it's the opposite situation in "collin McRae Dirt"

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by almighty

Call Of Duty 3 and Tony Hawks are then 720p aswel.

i not tested this games (and no demo on the XBL)

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

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!

[Quaz51]

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

[Todd33]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

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!

[Joshua Luna]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

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.

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by betan

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

[betan]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

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.

[Quaz51]

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

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

More?

[Laa-Yosh]

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.

[Dave Glue]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

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.

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by Dave Glue

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

[AlStrong]

Quaz, could you also check the 480p mode too? I'm wondering if they're still rendering at 640p or doing 480p.

[kyleb]

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.

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

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

[AlStrong]

Thanks guys.

[Quaz51]

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

[broodjeaap]

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?

[kyleb]

The preface to your question makes for a rather poor start here.

[broodjeaap]

Yeah I thought about that, but its insane that this went on for 12 pages and more then a month.

[Dave Glue]

Originally Posted by broodjeaap

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.

[Strange]

Originally Posted by broodjeaap

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.

[Dave Glue]

Originally Posted by broodjeaap

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.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by broodjeaap

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

[broodjeaap]

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.