Underappreciated: Extras and Graphical features that might not be worth the effort.

I've sort of wondered why we don't see DTS 360 games though... Might you be able to shed some light on that :?: :)
I don't know why, but DTS bitstream does not work properly in all DVD movie, even if it works right (transcoding) with HD DVD. DTS logo is not on X360 boxes: i guess the console is not certified.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
about the HDR, if somebody claims "halo3 to this day has the most accurate HDR ever created" (or something like that), and the lighting in that game only looks like mediocre-bloom type effects, of course people are doing to doubt such a statement.

I would say killzone has better "HDR", when you compare it to halo3 :D true hdr or not.
 
The overbloomed screenshots of an explosion caught in its lightest moment in photo-mode have about as much relevance to the lighting of Halo 3 as a shot displaying full-on a brick wall at the closest possible distance would have to the quality of textures.

This is the lighting of Halo 3:

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/051/926632_20080221_screen003.jpg

Notice the sunlight on the cliffs, it looks very "sunny", almost makes you want to squint - but there is plenty of detail in the dark parts of the shot.

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/803/803187/halo-3-20070711001713324.jpg

See the white-out-ed triangle in the rightmost part of the shot? See how the bloom on the stone in the lower left part, below the elbow of the character, hasn't destroyed the texture detail? This is the "good HDR" we are talking about.
 
HDR is a technical term regarding implementation and not a descriptor of an aesthetic.

I understand that, thats why I put in in quotation marks.
Again, from the looks of it they only use "HDR" (notice quotation marks) in Halo3 to calculate where to apply (excessive) bloom. Your picture with photography HDR vs game HDR is a perfect example.

THat is why I brought it up as an example of an under appreciated feature, because it is known that the graphics of halo3 suffered a lot because of it.
 
Bungie is one of the few devs who use a complete mathematically correct HDR workflow throughout the entire process, from content creation to rendering.
That sound good on paper, but I can't see the making any difference though. Intensity is a matter of source light * surface colouring * normal. If surface colouring can be captured in 256 intensities, it'll be enough to create content at that colour resolution to be lit correctly. Only if you're using floating point textures would HDR in the content creation make sense to me.

Hang on, I recall a thread on this...HDR the Bungie Way

As of this point, HDR implementation is to be held in the existing thread. And no-one wanting to discuss it should start without reading the thread through. Continue to post one's opinion on what efforts developers shouldn't go to here.
 
I hope it's not against the rules but since the original issue is here I thought I'll respond here as well...

If surface colouring can be captured in 256 intensities, it'll be enough to create content at that colour resolution to be lit correctly. Only if you're using floating point textures would HDR in the content creation make sense to me.

I've meant making sure that the content creation workflow handles gamma correction properly. It's an important part of doing HDR right even though it does not require float textures in itself. It's actually one of the things that's true for offline CG as well, and has only started to get the proper attention a few years ago.
 
Back
Top