Image Quality and Framebuffer Speculations for WIP/alpha/beta/E3 games *Read the first post*

Just wait for better quality feed. Not difficult.

Yes, that's my point (if you even read the post above).

Again, just wait for better quality feed. This thread should at least do better than looking at poopy compression (or just don't bother). If you're going to do a proper analysis, do it with a proper source that doesn't have a load of ambiguities.

 

Are you guy's using the direct download version (right click and save)? http://assets.ign.com/videos/zencoder/1920/497d2d81e41f6cd16572ee6a24c40201-6500000-1414100711-w.mp4

The video quality is quite good compared to other games that have been analyzed in the past. And for the most part, resolutions have been determined before an official developer response or release/review editorials.

 

Are you not reading the list of issues here?

False equivalency.

 

Yes. But we have judged and analyzed worst video in the past. Not saying the video is perfect, or doesn't contain anomalies... but that has never stopped others in the past. So, what's the big deal now? No one is claiming a definitive "yes" to anything as far as I can see. It's just mostly an observation on what's going on now (right or wrong) with the current footage that's available.

But if this is going to boil down to "wait for proper footage" or "better footage" then every future game that has streamed footage, cam-footage and so on, seems pointless on posting or even delving into the tech that could possibly be behind it.

 

It's always been irritating. You've probably missed the number of times when folks come in here with crap compression that are easily dismissible. It's a waste of time because nothing was good until there were better images.

 

Ok. Yes I do understand your point. But usually I look at it from a different perspective... if someone is purposely posting bad pics/footage - I chalk it up to console warrior BS, until proven otherwise.

 

Well, there is that possibility (just as there is any game), and considering MS included hardware support for (dynamic) scaling, you'd expect someone to use it. But as Al says, no point trying to squeeze such subtle infos from poor sources. A slight down-resolution coupled with post effects and post-AA techniques can make determining that sort of technique extremely difficult.

 

It's certainly not a little annoying to spend so much time going frame-by-frame and coming up with nothing conclusive, rather just more questions. Need more bitrate.

 

For dynamic resolution to happen wouldn't it be easier to spot given the following:

So we could theoretically count the HUD pixels to be a different resolution than the game pixels?
OT Dynamic resolution. I was under the assumption it is super hard to do because it's hard to predict when and how much you are going to go over budget on your CPU such that you know how much resolution to reduce by?

 

The problem here is that it's hard to get a fix on resolution at any point in time to do a comparison. XD

 

right lol this is actually a good thing it's hard to detect!

 

hm....

 

Funny short steps in the first image. Edge reconstruction?
Second one isn't quite like that though. *grumble*

That's taken from the same shot.


(╯°□°)╯︵ □

 

That would just show the game is lower res than the HUD, and not that the resolution of the game is changing over frames. You need to find a frame with a resolution, and then another frame with another resolution, to show dynamic resolution. It's really only spotable either pixel counting every frickin' frame, or when there's a huge change (eg. WipeOut) between extremes and it's visibly very obvious something is different.

Compare it to Killzone's image reconstruction. On slow moving scenes, it'd effectively 1080p and is counted as such, but artefacts gave away the underlying trick of horizontal interlacing. Without those artefacts, we may never have learnt the truth.

We'd need two frames in a game to be obviously different to justify another pixel-count in this age of post-effects and post-AA's. Either that or very bored pixel counters with nothing better to do that analyse countless frames...

 

There are really funny artefacts in the temporal AA for QB. It does remind me a bit of certain deinterlace (two short steps, one long step etc).

http://i.imgur.com/QfBf3Od.jpg

(╯°□°)╯︵

 

About your previous post about edge reconstruction, yes I missed it, sorry. But funny we arrived at the same edge reconstruction hypothesis.

But in my hypothesis it's some edge reconstruction done by the upscaling algorithm, not the AA, maybe similar to the custom upscaling solution used in Ryse.

Anyway whatever the true resolution of this build, there is still a lot of time before the release and I am fairly sure the resolution will improve in the future.

 

I'd be surprised. There was mention of possibly fixing the ghosting, so there is that at least. All these post-fx are muddying things (I guess that's the point).

(╯°□°)╯︵

 

Lots of high quality videos up on GamerSyde for Halo: the Master Chief collection:

http://www.gamersyde.com/game_2989_en.html

Will be interesting to hear if they are different or all the same, because then I will probably need to think about how to put them into my database.

I put all links that are interesting for determining framerate and resolution also into my database:

http://www.techingames.net/GameVersions/Details/119

 

I haven't counted, but according to 343i, everything is 1920x1080 except for the anniversary mode in Halo 2 campaign, which is 1328x1080.