Halo 3 does *not* run in HD resolution. it's 640p (below HD) not 720p (minimum HD)

LOL, i got "scared" for a second there that you actually didn't get
it.

glad that made sense to someone.

On Sep 28, 11:59 am, "David" wrote:
HUH? WTF are you talking about? thats a load of BS

LOL

Makes sense totally.

"AirRaid" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Sep 27, 7:19 pm, "Shonk" wrote:
I have just read a huge thread about this
and it does indeed seem like its running at 1138x640 no aa
there are a few other games that do this as well aparently

it has quite shocked me
i would have expected atleast 1280x720 4xaa
for all games minimum

it seems sony do this even more

not gona bother rushing out to get a 1080p tv now
gona stick to my 1366x768 40" samsung

yup.

even though Xbox 360 and PS3 are marketed as heavily as possible as HD
consoles, the truth is, they'd be better off playing SD games. Because
so much of their resources; CPU power, RAM and especially GPU
performance, goes into just getting the visuals to be rendered in 720p
(in the case of most games) or 1080p (in some games). a few
developers have selected to use less than 720p resolution in a handful
of games to achieve what they wanted visually. Halo 3 is one those
few.

In all honestly, neither Xbox 360 nore PS3 were given enough GPU
performance to handle 720p resolutions PLUS anti-aliasing PLUS "next-
gen" graphics PLUS smooth framerates ALL AT ONCE.

Sure, they can do one or two of those things at the same time but not
all four. If for example: 720p or 1080p resolution is used, plus AA,
plus 60fps, the graphics complexity/detail will only be around the
level of Xbox1/PS2. if the visuals are instead "next-gen" (actually
current-gen) then something else will suffer, usually framerate and
AA. The resolution (HD res) is almost always the last thing to get
tossed, but in Halo 3's case it was.

most people who read what I just wrote here are gonna go "HUH?"
"WTF are you talking about?" "that's a load of BS!" etc etc. but
what I am saying is true. it's not fanboyism because it applies to
both Xbox360 and PlayStation3. it's just the way it is. With all
hardware, there are limited resources. some more than others. but
still always limited. developers have to choose what to spend that
processing power on, from one frame to another, and how many frames
per second, what resolution etc.

I'm hoping that next generation consoles: 'Xbox 2010', 'PlayStation4',
etc, have enough muscle to handle 1080p with 8x AA, "next-gen"
graphics that look far more detailed than current gen, and at 60fps.
with the option to drop down to 720p for a boost in graphical detail,
but framerate and AA stay the same (or AA goes upto 16x).

On Sep 28, 4:06 am, scoopex wrote:
AirRaid wrote:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=44492&page=3
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread...=43330&page=11

it's been confirmed that Halo 3 runs at 640p resolution. It does not
run in 720p.

720p is the lowest high definition standard, the lowest HD
resolution. so Halo 3 is blow that. you could say Halo 3 runs in
enhanced definition, or between SD and HD, but it's definitally not
HD.

even with sub-HD resolution, Halo 3 also does not have any anti-
aliasing to smooth out the jagged edges. worst of all, Halo 3 does
not even run at a consistant 30 frames per second. there are many
framerate drops below 30.

the only good thing about Halo 3's graphics is the lighting and the
HDR (high dynamic range) lighting, the particle effects and some of
the other effects. The colors are very nice, the artwork is pretty
good (though not as good as Metroid Prime 3 on Wii). Yet the level of
complexity in the models, the amount of geometry, is pretty low. it's
more like last-gen standards. overall the graphics are not nearly as
impressive as Gears of War.

it's not the fault of the Xbox 360's capabilities, but much more the
talent at Bungie.
they're good as multi-player and some aspects of gameplay and art
direction, but I've never been impressed with their ability to produce
technically great graphics.

oh ****off you ****.

--http://www.flickr.com/photos/scoopex/

IMO of course

"AirRaid" wrote in message
ps.com...
I also wanted to clear some confusion for those that might -think- I
meant Halo 3 is 640x480. that's not the case at all. 640p
resolution is much higher, it's either 1138 x 640 or something close
to 1138 (by 640) pixels


additionally, some other sources

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=84358
http://www.xboxic.com/news/3751
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/34...y-runs-at-640p


when people say Halo 3 is 720p, what is actually happening is, it's
being scaled by the Xbox 360's scaler (or television) to 720p.

the native resolution is 640p



Well here you go..

Bungie Weekly Update: 09/28/07
Posted by lukems at 9/28/2007 2:56 PM PDT
Finally Fighting


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 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.


Now quit yer bellyaching n00b

GT: flamablenuts

it has been confrimed by bungie its 1152x640 theyr trying to sping it a bit

bungie needs to get some better programmers i think

On Sep 28, 8:20 pm, "Shonk" wrote:
it has been confrimed by bungie its 1152x640 theyr trying to sping it a bit

bungie needs to get some better programmers i think

yup it's been confirmed now so everyone suggesting it was just some
nobody on a forum can be quiet now.

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.a...news&cid=12821

QUOTE:

"Halo 3's vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is
indeed 640 pixels."

they do indeed try to spin it, and they spin it pretty well, but it's
still 640p

http://www.shonk.org/hd.jpg

On Sep 27, 2:57 pm, AirRaid wrote:

it's not the fault of the Xbox 360's capabilities, but much more the
talent at Bungie.

I love Bungie's official response:

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
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.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:32:58 -0000, AirRaid
wrote:

On Sep 28, 8:20 pm, "Shonk" wrote:
it has been confrimed by bungie its 1152x640 theyr trying to sping it a bit

bungie needs to get some better programmers i think

yup it's been confirmed now so everyone suggesting it was just some
nobody on a forum can be quiet now.

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.a...news&cid=12821

QUOTE:

"Halo 3's vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is
indeed 640 pixels."

they do indeed try to spin it, and they spin it pretty well, but it's
still 640p

well whoopee-do.

remind me again just who gives a ****?
--

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

"Chris F" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:32:58 -0000, AirRaid
wrote:

On Sep 28, 8:20 pm, "Shonk" wrote:
it has been confrimed by bungie its 1152x640 theyr trying to sping it a
bit

bungie needs to get some better programmers i think

yup it's been confirmed now so everyone suggesting it was just some
nobody on a forum can be quiet now.

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.a...news&cid=12821

QUOTE:

"Halo 3's vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is
indeed 640 pixels."

they do indeed try to spin it, and they spin it pretty well, but it's
still 640p

well whoopee-do.

remind me again just who gives a ****?

Indeed. Well those who like to database their toenail clippings apparently


--

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:09:07 +0100, "Deano"
wrote:


"Chris F" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:32:58 -0000, AirRaid
wrote:

On Sep 28, 8:20 pm, "Shonk" wrote:
it has been confrimed by bungie its 1152x640 theyr trying to sping it a
bit

bungie needs to get some better programmers i think

yup it's been confirmed now so everyone suggesting it was just some
nobody on a forum can be quiet now.

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.a...news&cid=12821

QUOTE:

"Halo 3's vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is
indeed 640 pixels."

they do indeed try to spin it, and they spin it pretty well, but it's
still 640p

well whoopee-do.

remind me again just who gives a ****?

Indeed. Well those who like to database their toenail clippings apparently


sad pricks then.

--

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.