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

In microsoft.public.xbox Memnoch wrote:

Just for the record, I don't know myself as I'm not into kiddy consoles
ducks, but have MS stated anywhere that for a piece of software to be
classed as HD it HAS to output to at least 720p without upscaling? If they
haven't then this discussion is ultimately pointless. I would suggest to the
OP that they either return the game or carry on playing.

The HD definition isn't set by Microsoft, and Microsoft has publically
stated that all of the games for the 360 were required to support 720p
native, if not better.

Big picture, it's not a big deal - the game looks nice, and is fun to
play. It's more of an honesty issue.

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

In microsoft.public.xbox Shane Nokes wrote:
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.

Why would you do 2304x1280 when TVs can only do 1920x1080 at best? It's a
weird resolution, and the 360 will have to downscale the image before
outputting it.

And anyways, the final outputted image IS 1152x640p. If you're talking
about them doing "half the image" they're doing interlacing in the
buffers, then knitting them together before it's sent out of the 360.

All of the spin that Bungie is doing is just stupid. The game isn't 720p
native, so why don't they just come out and admit it - instead of trying
to come up with these convuluted reasons.

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

On Oct 3, 12:53 pm, "Shane Nokes"
wrote:
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.

It doesn't work like that. You CANNOT take two 1152x640 images and
somehow make a 2304x1280 out of it. One 1152x640 image has 737280
pixels. Two 1152x640 images would have a total resolution of
2304x640(side by side) or just 1474560 pixels total. It would take
FOUR 1152x640 images to make a 2304x1280 (2,949,120 pixel) image. You
only double one of the numbers when you double an images size.

It doesn't matter anyways, the end image is still 1152x640.

he's saying if a 640 image is stretched to 720 its hd
which it isnt ofc..


"Doug Jacobs" wrote in message
...
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.

"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.

Now that's funny. Maybe someday, you'll actually understand what you just
wrote.

Yah know, I don't really care about 640p vs 720p, but I do care about
getting slimed with that HDR rendering buffer BS. All the gazillions of
transforms and effects write to their own frame buffers along the way. If
you want to count them all up and call it a bazillion gigapixel image, y'all
go right on ahead. In the end, the only frame buffer that counts is the one
being displayed. It is 1152x648. Period.

The sad part of it is, there was no half-witted corporate coverup here. It
was just some guy, doing his best and meaning well, trying to explain
geek-speak he doesn't understand in terms he thinks you might understand.
The message inevitably got garbled. The bottom-line probably went something
like this: "We won't get the framerates at 720p with HDR. If we squeeze
really hard, sacrifice our personal lives, working weekends, holidays, and
vacations, we might get to 480p. Your choice... 480p with HDR; 720p
without." Disbelief, wheedling, and negotiating likely followed. The rest is
as you see it, blogger/usenet history.

They did come out and admit that each frame buffer was supplying 1152x640 to
the final frame buffer.

It's just normal people don't seem to get how things work and assume that
they do.

Also when you render something at a higher level and downscale you gain a
sort of free AA.

That's how FSAA works. A scene is rendered at a higher resolution and down
scaled to the current resolution.
It removes some of the rougher edges. FSAA can case a huge performance hit
if the hardware isn't good enough.
That's why GPU manufacturers moved to MSAA, you can get the same effect with
less performance hit by just doing sample averaging.

"Doug Jacobs" wrote in message
...
In microsoft.public.xbox Shane Nokes
wrote:
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.

Why would you do 2304x1280 when TVs can only do 1920x1080 at best? It's a
weird resolution, and the 360 will have to downscale the image before
outputting it.

And anyways, the final outputted image IS 1152x640p. If you're talking
about them doing "half the image" they're doing interlacing in the
buffers, then knitting them together before it's sent out of the 360.

All of the spin that Bungie is doing is just stupid. The game isn't 720p
native, so why don't they just come out and admit it - instead of trying
to come up with these convuluted reasons.

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

Oh you can't can you?
What do you have to say about nVidia's SLI?
What do you have to say about ATi's crossfire solution?

Thought so, just walk away now.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 3, 12:53 pm, "Shane Nokes"
wrote:
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.

It doesn't work like that. You CANNOT take two 1152x640 images and
somehow make a 2304x1280 out of it. One 1152x640 image has 737280
pixels. Two 1152x640 images would have a total resolution of
2304x640(side by side) or just 1474560 pixels total. It would take
FOUR 1152x640 images to make a 2304x1280 (2,949,120 pixel) image. You
only double one of the numbers when you double an images size.

It doesn't matter anyways, the end image is still 1152x640.

On Oct 4, 12:35 pm, "Shane Nokes"
wrote:
Oh you can't can you?
What do you have to say about nVidia's SLI?
What do you have to say about ATi's crossfire solution?

Thought so, just walk away now.

wrote in message

ups.com...

On Oct 3, 12:53 pm, "Shane Nokes"
wrote:
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.

It doesn't work like that. You CANNOT take two 1152x640 images and
somehow make a 2304x1280 out of it. One 1152x640 image has 737280
pixels. Two 1152x640 images would have a total resolution of
2304x640(side by side) or just 1474560 pixels total. It would take
FOUR 1152x640 images to make a 2304x1280 (2,949,120 pixel) image. You
only double one of the numbers when you double an images size.

It doesn't matter anyways, the end image is still 1152x640.

Not only are you continuing to prove yourself to be an idiot, you're
being a top posting idiot.

It's extremely basic geometry. Do you live in some fancy world where
2,949,120 is NOT four times 737,280?

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:41:21 -0000, Doug Jacobs
wrote:

In microsoft.public.xbox Shane Nokes wrote:
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.

Why would you do 2304x1280 when TVs can only do 1920x1080 at best? It's a
weird resolution, and the 360 will have to downscale the image before
outputting it.

And anyways, the final outputted image IS 1152x640p. If you're talking
about them doing "half the image" they're doing interlacing in the
buffers, then knitting them together before it's sent out of the 360.

All of the spin that Bungie is doing is just stupid. The game isn't 720p
native, so why don't they just come out and admit it - instead of trying
to come up with these convuluted reasons.

I'm with everyone else here Shane I'm afraid. It doesn't sound like you
understand what it is doing. For example, in my ATI Tray Tools I can tell the
driver to render x amount of frames ahead of what it is rendering on screen at
that time. Does that mean I double or treble the final outputted frames
resolution? No, of course it doesn't. It just means the card has x amount of
frames ready to be displayed, making the game run smoother than it would
without it. The console may be rendering two frames at once, but each one is
only going to be 1152x640.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:30:37 -0000, Doug Jacobs
wrote:

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.

I would guess they did it for speed reasons. If the game wasn't rendering at
an acceptable speed at 720p they should just come out and say it instead of
making excuses.