Photomode renders 7x the in game resolution both x and y then downsample to 1080..the improvement is huge.
Halo 3 IQ discussion * - Stay civil and polite folks!
- Thread starter palamede
- Start date
- Status
scooby_dooby
Legend
I don't think so... if it was upscaled it would be evident when counting the steps. The images would be no different than the one Quaz took with his camera, but these are clearly 720p.
Could be, but would they really think it could work? A small sample of screens given out to media sites? They must've know, after PGR3 got exposed, that this would be totally futile.
Could be, but these screens all appeared a couple days before release, long after the game had gone gold.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Agreed completely. And no, this has nothing to do with Hype, or any of that other crap, I'd shoot this game down in a heartbeat if I felt it deserved it, but it really is a treat for the eyes, and I'm really surprised people are dissapointed.
Well for me,
- the first level was lush and gorgeous.
- Level 2 was nothing special, stuck indoors most of the time.
- Level 3 was a treat for the eyes with the huge structures in the background and the beautiful sky,
- can't rememeber much for level 4,
- level 5 is also very pretty with the massive ark and giant crater in the background, the ships flying around, the smoke and the skybox all combine for probably the most impressive level so far.
Actually level 5 is one I feel surpasses Gears of War, if you compare it to a similar level in gears, like the immulsion factory, Halo is so much nicer it's no comparison.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. As I metioned in another thread, I'm playing on a 20" LCD, so things like aliasing and lack of texture filtering really stand out for me, it seriously impacts the image.
I play on a monitor as well and I agree. It really makes poor IQ jump out at you. The Darkness on PS3, for example (which is a steaming pile of equestrian scat overall, btw) looks passable on a big screen tv. But sitting 3 feet away from a 21" monitor fed by a pure digital picture is a different story. The Darkness looks downright nasty.
On the other hand, playing on the monitor makes games with good IQ that much sweeter. Like Formula 1.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ya, I game on a 46" CRT projection, so it hides flaws pretty well.
I believe the PS3 version is running at quite a low res and upscaled, so that would explain that. It looks quite decent on my display with the 360, at least with the demo (aside from framerate issues).
Master Chief and most of the spartan armor variations are actually pretty cool looking.
The covenant characters aren't that good though, and I agree that most of the human characters look bad up-close.
However, when I first saw the video capture of the intro here, I thought that it might even be pre-rendered. The lighting and self-shadowing are very, very good, and make the characters work pretty well when viewed from a distance.
Still, you can't deny that they could've done so much better with the models and textures. It's not just about being pretty, but the player simply won't care for such ugly people even though he's supposed to be saving them.
The covenant characters aren't that good though, and I agree that most of the human characters look bad up-close.
However, when I first saw the video capture of the intro here, I thought that it might even be pre-rendered. The lighting and self-shadowing are very, very good, and make the characters work pretty well when viewed from a distance.
Still, you can't deny that they could've done so much better with the models and textures. It's not just about being pretty, but the player simply won't care for such ugly people even though he's supposed to be saving them.
Bungie speaks:
"You Owe me 80p!
One item making the interwebs rounds this week was the scandalous revelation that Halo 3 runs at “640p” which isn’t even technically a resolution. However, the interweb detectives did notice that Halo 3’s vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is indeed 640 pixels. So what gives? Did we short change you 80 pixels?
Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image.
This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels. Making this decision simpler still is the fact that the 360 scales the
“almost-720p” image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire.
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s[GAF] propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."
"You Owe me 80p!
One item making the interwebs rounds this week was the scandalous revelation that Halo 3 runs at “640p” which isn’t even technically a resolution. However, the interweb detectives did notice that Halo 3’s vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is indeed 640 pixels. So what gives? Did we short change you 80 pixels?
Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image.
This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels. Making this decision simpler still is the fact that the 360 scales the
“almost-720p” image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire.
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s[GAF] propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."
Would there be this furor over the resolution if MS didn't publicly promise that all X360 games would be 720p with AA?
Maybe they had small print which said it could be rendered at a resolution below 720p but upscaled to at least 720p?
Or have they dropped the 720p and AA requirement altogether?
It's moot as far as sales go. And this discovery won't affect Halo4 sales one bit.
Maybe they had small print which said it could be rendered at a resolution below 720p but upscaled to at least 720p?
Or have they dropped the 720p and AA requirement altogether?
It's moot as far as sales go. And this discovery won't affect Halo4 sales one bit.
Yet a number of games haven't shipped with MSAA or at 720p. It all has to do with the profile of the title and the market impact. The fact Bungie isn't a 3rd party and is platform exclusive also offers more relevance in some sectors.
I dont think it really has anything to do with what MS claimed way back when. I think its obvious that this latest piece of information has been just another tool for CAMP A to zing CAMP B as being some sort victory in the power struggle. These days, thats what all these discoveries are used for.
Does anyone know how exactly the eDRAM comes into play when doing this? Obviosuly it can't be tiling, as each frame would fit snugly within the 10MB eDRAM limits?
For some reason I knew the lighting had something to do with it. It's simply the best I've ever seen in a game. I for one welcome enhanced lighting and other graphical effects with a slight decrease in resolution (that would hardly be noticed anyway). It's a pretty smart way to use the 360's hardware to it's fullest. PS3 developers for instance won't be able to take advantage of such tricks because there isn't as complex a scaler on board.
I really think 10MB edram is the culprit. It just isn't large enough. MS should have included enough edram for a nice 1280x720p with 2x AA resolution without tiling.
Hmm, I would have thought the NGS trick would work quite well with this method, no?
- Status