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

No, but if you gave me a car with 2 engines that each did 75mph and combined
their output to a 3rd engine that provided the power to turn the wheels and
make the car go 150mph I wouldn't complain either.

That's what Bungie did here. They rendered the scene at 1152x640 twice and
then composited the render into the final frame buffer that was transmitted
to the screen essentially offering a resolution of 2304x1280 total pixels
being delivered to the screen.

People just don't like the fact that each frame buffer only contains half
the image.

"Memnoch" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:03:18 +0100, Chris F

wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:27:03 GMT, "Shonk" wrote:

here here

i thaught i was the only one

no, there's plenty of people out there with nothing better to care
about.

If I sold you a car advertising it as benig able to do 150mph and you
complained that it couldn't, then I said it would do that if you drove it
off
a cliff would you consider that acceptable? :-)

On Sep 30, 12:16 pm, "Shonk" wrote:
umm no its 1152x640
the rest is just spin from bungie

"Jonah Falcon" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Sep 29, 6:20 pm, "boodybandit" wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message

groups.com...

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.

Bungie is full of ****.
I noticed the resolution the minute that game started using in-game
graphics
instead of cut scenes. I was really disappointed but I am a Halo junkie
and
I care more about the gameplay any way. But it is a big disappointment
for
this hyped and marketed. I thinkk it makes both Bungie and MS look bad.

Throw in the fact that Bungie screwed up 33% of the limited and legendary
disc with poor dvd holders and this is starting to look like a cluster
****.

Overall though Istill think the game looks a lot better than some are
making it out to be. I don't think there are many games (a handful) that
look better then Halo 3 on the 360.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HDR lighting. There's two filters running at the same time that add up
to 1080p. They had a choice - run one filter at 1080p, or run two that
added up to it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Um, yes. Learn software programming. CoD3 did the same thing for the
PC, PS3 and 360.

umm no its still 1152x640


"Shane Nokes" wrote in message
...
No, but if you gave me a car with 2 engines that each did 75mph and
combined their output to a 3rd engine that provided the power to turn the
wheels and make the car go 150mph I wouldn't complain either.

That's what Bungie did here. They rendered the scene at 1152x640 twice
and then composited the render into the final frame buffer that was
transmitted to the screen essentially offering a resolution of 2304x1280
total pixels being delivered to the screen.

People just don't like the fact that each frame buffer only contains half
the image.

"Memnoch" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:03:18 +0100, Chris F

wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:27:03 GMT, "Shonk" wrote:

here here

i thaught i was the only one

no, there's plenty of people out there with nothing better to care
about.

If I sold you a car advertising it as benig able to do 150mph and you
complained that it couldn't, then I said it would do that if you drove it
off
a cliff would you consider that acceptable? :-)

FACT: Halo 3 is NOT HD and NOT next-gen.

Halo 3 is previous gen... and it runs on a previous gen console, XBOX
360.

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

wrote:
FACT: Halo 3 is NOT HD and NOT next-gen.

Halo 3 is previous gen... and it runs on a previous gen console, XBOX
360.

If you're going to troll with FACTs, at least get them right.

You're correct that it's not next-gen, but it is current-gen. It is of
the current generation. The XBox is previous generation.

Also, it IS HD. The quality of the content has nothing to do with
whether something is High-Definition. A completely white rectangle, if
rendered fullscreen at 1920x1080, qualifies as High-Definition, as a
1080p signal is being presented to the screen.

this guy is just a troll
but he is correct with one thing
the game isnt hd
for it to qualify for hd
it doesnt just have to be over a certain resolution
but it has to be nativley over a certain resolution
that being 1280x720 which it isnt

so no it isnt hd


wrote in message
oups.com...
FACT: Halo 3 is NOT HD and NOT next-gen.

Halo 3 is previous gen... and it runs on a previous gen console, XBOX
360.

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

Where'd you get your programming degree?
How about any QA work that you've done?
Have you ever done anything in the world of game development?
I have, and I think I should know how frame buffers work.
2 frame buffers combining two separate non-identical images are equal to the
sum of each separately.

It's not an a+b/2 sort of thing. Both images are equally valid and both are
fully rendered and combined.
That means there are quite literally 2,949,120 pixels being pushed through
to the final render.
That's a res of 2304x1280 no matter how you slice it.

"Shonk" wrote in message
...
umm no its still 1152x640


"Shane Nokes" wrote in message
...
No, but if you gave me a car with 2 engines that each did 75mph and
combined their output to a 3rd engine that provided the power to turn the
wheels and make the car go 150mph I wouldn't complain either.

That's what Bungie did here. They rendered the scene at 1152x640 twice
and then composited the render into the final frame buffer that was
transmitted to the screen essentially offering a resolution of 2304x1280
total pixels being delivered to the screen.

People just don't like the fact that each frame buffer only contains half
the image.

"Memnoch" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:03:18 +0100, Chris F

wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:27:03 GMT, "Shonk" wrote:

here here

i thaught i was the only one

no, there's plenty of people out there with nothing better to care
about.

If I sold you a car advertising it as benig able to do 150mph and you
complained that it couldn't, then I said it would do that if you drove
it off
a cliff would you consider that acceptable? :-)

In alt.games.video.xbox Koalaboy wrote:

If you're going to troll with FACTs, at least get them right.

Who trolls with facts?

Also, it IS HD. The quality of the content has nothing to do with
whether something is High-Definition. A completely white rectangle, if
rendered fullscreen at 1920x1080, qualifies as High-Definition, as a
1080p signal is being presented to the screen.

That's true, but from what I've read, Halo3 is doing something like 600p -
which isn't HD. HD is a minimum of 720p.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

i dont care what you think is equal to what
you can have 200 frame buffers if theyr in 1152x640
the end resolution is 1152x640


"Shane Nokes" wrote in message
...
Where'd you get your programming degree?
How about any QA work that you've done?
Have you ever done anything in the world of game development?
I have, and I think I should know how frame buffers work.
2 frame buffers combining two separate non-identical images are equal to
the sum of each separately.

It's not an a+b/2 sort of thing. Both images are equally valid and both
are fully rendered and combined.
That means there are quite literally 2,949,120 pixels being pushed through
to the final render.
That's a res of 2304x1280 no matter how you slice it.

"Shonk" wrote in message
...
umm no its still 1152x640


"Shane Nokes" wrote in message
...
No, but if you gave me a car with 2 engines that each did 75mph and
combined their output to a 3rd engine that provided the power to turn
the wheels and make the car go 150mph I wouldn't complain either.

That's what Bungie did here. They rendered the scene at 1152x640 twice
and then composited the render into the final frame buffer that was
transmitted to the screen essentially offering a resolution of 2304x1280
total pixels being delivered to the screen.

People just don't like the fact that each frame buffer only contains
half the image.

"Memnoch" wrote in message
news On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:03:18 +0100, Chris F

wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:27:03 GMT, "Shonk" wrote:

here here

i thaught i was the only one

no, there's plenty of people out there with nothing better to care
about.

If I sold you a car advertising it as benig able to do 150mph and you
complained that it couldn't, then I said it would do that if you drove
it off
a cliff would you consider that acceptable? :-)

In microsoft.public.xbox Shonk wrote:
here here

i thaught i was the only one

Nope, I agree.

The original XBox games had a little check list of what features were
supported, including things like 480p, 720p, online support, multiplayer,
etc.

I know that Microsoft has stated that ALL 360 games will support, at a
minimum, 720p. This would imply they would also support 480i and 480p
resolutions as well. I don't care why this game doesn't, but it should be
noted

BTW, am I the only one who thinks this "we lowered the resolution because
of the lighting" thing is a cheesy excuse? Don't tap dance around, just
call it what it is.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.