• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

buckeye13
Banned
(06-24-2014, 03:56 PM)

Originally Posted by Dax01

Maybe if I had images side by side, sure, but I've never been able to tell what's say, 900p or 1080p just by looking at it.

I can , the scaler on xb1 while improved , is easy to spot , from my experience
Chitown B
Member
(06-24-2014, 03:56 PM)
Chitown B's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Real Napsta

pixels aren't always square

all pixels are square. because all squares are rectangles :P
Chitown B
Member
(06-24-2014, 03:57 PM)
Chitown B's Avatar

Originally Posted by x-Lundz-x

I played it again a few years ago when Halo: Anniversary came out and it really stood out to me that it doesn't look good at all. It doesn't hold up well IMO.

I played thousands of games of H3 and I played it recently. It does not look bad. It's sharp and clean looking. It looks how it always looked.
JB1981
I am full of shit.
Rich, smooth, creamy shit.
(06-24-2014, 03:58 PM)
Halo 3 at 1080p60fps w/ some decent AA should be amazing.
Guerrilla
Member
(06-24-2014, 03:58 PM)
Guerrilla's Avatar


I'm sure Halo 2A will look great and be great fun no matter the res :)
dwells
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:00 PM)
dwells's Avatar

Originally Posted by x-Lundz-x

Link for the lazy?

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/g...ief-collection

On the "A New Era for Halo" banner.

Originally Posted by Dax01

Maybe if I had images side by side, sure, but I've never been able to tell what's say, 900p or 1080p just by looking at it.

Here you go. I've used Halo 4 as an example. The top images are rendered in native 1080p, while the bottom are 810p (H2A resolution) upscaled to 1080p.








Der Flatulator
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:03 PM)
Der Flatulator's Avatar

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I suspect you're right but do you have a link to the maths behind this?

Just trying to figure it out myself.

There's 32 MB of ESRAM.

1600 * 900 (resolution) * 2 (double buffer) * 4 (RGBA @ 32 bit) = 11,520,000 bytes.

That's 10.986 MB out of 32 MB.
Last edited by Der Flatulator; 06-24-2014 at 04:12 PM. Reason: derp
Guerrilla
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:03 PM)
Guerrilla's Avatar

Originally Posted by dwells

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/g...ief-collection

On the "A New Era for Halo" banner.



Here you go. I've used Halo 4 as an example. The top images are rendered in native 1080p, while the bottom are 810p (H2A resolution) upscaled to 1080p.

This is not how it would look...
AlStrong
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:05 PM)
AlStrong's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dax01

I'm not oversimplifying it because I haven't said anything that wasn't true: pixels are tiny little squares that you can't see unless you're really up close to your TV screen.

Pixels don't have to be square, but they can be if they're hip. :V
nomis
(06-24-2014, 04:06 PM)
nomis's Avatar

Originally Posted by dwells

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/g...ief-collection

On the "A New Era for Halo" banner.



Here you go. I've used Halo 4 as an example. The top images are rendered in native 1080p, while the bottom are 810p (H2A resolution) upscaled to 1080p.

People have gone over this ad nauseum in resolution threadz. Taking a lower pixel image and stretching it with a really good algorithm like Photoshop is absolutely different from a console trying to upscale all those frames in real time.

Never mind that a still image will never be indicative of stair crawling or shimmering.
x-Lundz-x
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:07 PM)
x-Lundz-x's Avatar

Originally Posted by dwells

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/g...ief-collection

On the "A New Era for Halo" banner.

Now I see it thank you, wow I guess that's that.

Probably just changed it in case they can't hit 1080P which sounds might be the case.
Banjo-Kazooie
Banned
(06-24-2014, 04:08 PM)

Originally Posted by dwells

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/g...ief-collection

On the "A New Era for Halo" banner.



Here you go. I've used Halo 4 as an example. The top images are rendered in native 1080p, while the bottom are 810p (H2A resolution) upscaled to 1080p.

Um...no..
klodeckel
Banned
(06-24-2014, 04:08 PM)

Originally Posted by JB1981

Halo 3 at 1080p60fps w/ some decent AA should be amazing.

Yep. Definitely.

BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
(06-24-2014, 04:08 PM)
BigTnaples's Avatar

Originally Posted by x-Lundz-x

I played it again a few years ago when Halo: Anniversary came out and it really stood out to me that it doesn't look good at all. It doesn't hold up well IMO.

Eh.


For comparison.

Last edited by BigTnaples; 06-24-2014 at 04:12 PM.
The Librarian
Banned
(06-24-2014, 04:11 PM)
The Librarian's Avatar

Originally Posted by dwells

Here you go. I've used Halo 4 as an example. The top images are rendered in native 1080p, while the bottom are 810p (H2A resolution) upscaled to 1080p.

As I said, I can tell the difference side by side, but if you posted those 810p pictures and told me that was, say, 900p or whatever, I wouldn't know.
Eoin
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:11 PM)

Originally Posted by hooijdonk17

Being dissatisfied with a sub-par offering and angry at being lied to regardless of intention of purchase is still less stupid than being happy/indifferent about being lied to about said sub-par product you intend to buy.

When were you lied to? In the announcment 1080p was only mentioned in respect to the multiplayer. "The HMCC has over 100 multiplayer maps, that's every map ever released on Halo 1 through 4, all running on their original engines, all running at 1080p, 60fps"
Then when asked about the campaigns in interviews they were straight forward and said they were confident of hitting 1080p for Halo 1,3,4, but less so with Halo 2 Anniversary, though that was still their goal.

As for this collection being a sub par offering, you are just insane. This is one of the most value packed offerings I have ever seen released.
psychotron
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:13 PM)
psychotron's Avatar
Hopefully pop-in can be reduced too. My wife never notices odd graphical issues in games, but in Halo 3 she would constantly laugh at the grass popping in as I was driving around.
dwells
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:14 PM)
dwells's Avatar

Originally Posted by Guerrilla

This is not how it would look...

You're right, that's probably a little better, as those images did not have the constraint of needing to be scaled with extremely low latency in realtime and are stills which hide the jaggedness you would see in motion.

Originally Posted by nomis

People have gone over this ad nauseum in resolution threadz. Taking a lower pixel image and stretching it with a really good algorithm like Photoshop is absolutely different from a console trying to upscale all those frames in real time.

Never mind that a still image will never be indicative of stair crawling or shimmering.

Oh, I know and agree entirely. I just used those as an example. But even in stills, it's a pretty damn obvious difference. Stretched resolutions look even worse in motion.
x-Lundz-x
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:16 PM)
x-Lundz-x's Avatar

Originally Posted by BigTnaples

Eh.

Compared to Halo 4 it's night and day how much better Halo 4 looks (as it should obviously). Just to me Halo 3 doesn't hold up as well as some of you think.

The increased resolution / AA on the XB1 will help I'm sure.
Detective
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:18 PM)
Detective's Avatar
I see there is lots of talk about resolution. Is there something new I have missed?

Wasn't this announced as 1080p?
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:22 PM)
FUNKNOWN iXi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chitown B

I played thousands of games of H3 and I played it recently. It does not look bad. It's sharp and clean looking. It looks how it always looked.

Sharp? Halo 3 might be the jaggiest game on the 360.. Hyperbole not included.
Der Flatulator
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:22 PM)
Der Flatulator's Avatar
Just cropped the images above:

1080p:


810p upscaled:
klodeckel
Banned
(06-24-2014, 04:22 PM)

Originally Posted by dwells

You're right, that's probably a little better, as those images did not have the constraint of needing to be scaled with extremely low latency in realtime and are stills which hide the jaggedness you would see in motion.

This direct-capture as an example is a much better and meaningful comparison than your Photoshop-edits.



Personally, - without the captions - I would need to look more than twice to see the difference. If we add the a usual real life situation elements like a not-perfect calibrated TV, distance from person to TV, external lights and veiling reflections on the screen glass the difference would be even more hard to see.

But again, let's just wait. They obviously want to get it to 1080p.
Last edited by klodeckel; 06-24-2014 at 04:29 PM.
Chitown B
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:26 PM)
Chitown B's Avatar

Originally Posted by FUNKNOWN iXi

Sharp? Halo 3 might be the jaggiest game on the 360.. Hyperbole not included.

what?

from my screen shots (and compressed via photobucket):



The Librarian
Banned
(06-24-2014, 04:31 PM)
The Librarian's Avatar

Originally Posted by klodeckel1990

This direct-capture as an example is a much better and meaningful comparison than your Photoshop-edits.



Personally, - without the captions - I would need to look more than twice to see the difference. If we add the a usual real life situation elements like a not-perfect calibrated TV, distance from person to TV, external lights and veiling reflections on the screen glass the difference would be even more hard to see.

But again, let's just wait. They obviously want to get it to 1080p.

I know I wouldn't be able to tell the difference if I were sitting at home and playing that game.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:32 PM)
FUNKNOWN iXi's Avatar
I'm at work so I can't see those pictures, but Halo 3 in pics always looked great. While playing though, the game was very jaggy. Pop in Halo 3 right now and tell me you don't see the jaggies all over that BR. If you still don't see them, you're lying.

Fight me. :]
AlStrong
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:34 PM)
AlStrong's Avatar

(H2A, H3, H2)

Heh. Not a complaint per se just something I noticed.

It used to be an innie. :p
JB1981
I am full of shit.
Rich, smooth, creamy shit.
(06-24-2014, 04:34 PM)

Originally Posted by FUNKNOWN iXi

I'm at work so I can't see those pictures, but Halo 3 in pics always looked great. While playing though, the game was very jaggy. Pop in Halo 3 right now and tell me you don't see the jaggies all over that BR. If you still don't see them, you're lying.

Fight me. :]

The odd resolution combined with a lack of AA resulted in a very jaggy image, yes.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
(06-24-2014, 04:34 PM)
BigTnaples's Avatar

Originally Posted by FUNKNOWN iXi

I'm at work so I can't see those pictures, but Halo 3 in pics always looked great. While playing though, the game was very jaggy. Pop in Halo 3 right now and tell me you don't see the jaggies all over that BR. If you still don't see them, you're lying.

Fight me. :]



Of course there are jaggies in the 360 version. You are in a thread about the XBO version (1080p, 60FPS, hopefully some AA). Try and follow along.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:36 PM)
FUNKNOWN iXi's Avatar

Originally Posted by BigTnaples

Of course there are jaggies in the 360 version. You are in a thread about the XBO version (1080p, 60FPS, hopefully some AA). Try and follow along.

Cute. Skip the post above the one you quoted and see who I was responding to.

Try and follow along next time buddy.
dwells
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:37 PM)
dwells's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chitown B

what?

from my screen shots (and compressed via photobucket):



Photo mode renders the scene at an extremely high resolution and then supersamples it back down, so it's not even slightly representative of what Halo 3 actually looks like when you're playing it.
Chitown B
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:38 PM)
Chitown B's Avatar

Originally Posted by FUNKNOWN iXi

I'm at work so I can't see those pictures, but Halo 3 in pics always looked great. While playing though, the game was very jaggy. Pop in Halo 3 right now and tell me you don't see the jaggies all over that BR. If you still don't see them, you're lying.

Fight me. :]

do you look at your BR while you're playing? you must die a lot...
Summer Haze
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:38 PM)
Summer Haze's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chitown B

H3 does not look bad.

I didn't say it looked bad. But it definitely looks dated now. I would have loved to replay through the story with updated graphics is all.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
(06-24-2014, 04:39 PM)
BigTnaples's Avatar

Originally Posted by FUNKNOWN iXi

Cute. Skip the post above the one you quoted and see who I was responding to.

Try and follow along next time buddy.


Touché.
AlStrong
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:40 PM)
AlStrong's Avatar

Originally Posted by psychotron

Hopefully pop-in can be reduced too. My wife never notices odd graphical issues in games, but in Halo 3 she would constantly laugh at the grass popping in as I was driving around.

Yeah, LOD distance. They should also increase the distance at which character shadows are rendered too while they're at it.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:40 PM)
FUNKNOWN iXi's Avatar

Originally Posted by dwells

Photo mode renders the scene at an extremely high resolution and then supersamples it back down, so it's not even slightly representative of what Halo 3 actually looks like when you're playing it.

^

Originally Posted by Chitown B

do you look at your BR while you're playing? you must die a lot...

When the BR takes up a significant portion of the screen, then yes, yes I do notice the BR that looks like it has a staircase on its scope.

Plus, I was a 5 Star General in Halo 3 and helped many people get 50's. Want my Waypoint Career resume? Again, fight me.
CookedChocobo
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:40 PM)
CookedChocobo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Detective

I see there is lots of talk about resolution. Is there something new I have missed?

Wasn't this announced as 1080p?

Indeed, but people gotta debate/argue/be pessimistic over something lol.
dwells
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:41 PM)
dwells's Avatar

Originally Posted by klodeckel1990

This direct-capture as an example is a much better and meaningful comparison than your Photoshop-edits.

How in the world is a compressed screenshot of a compressed video showing a small portion of an image with a smaller rendering resolution disparity of a game with a blurry post-process AA solution a "much better and meaningful" comparison than a comparison of a direct 1080p render and a scaled version?

Originally Posted by Detective

I see there is lots of talk about resolution. Is there something new I have missed?

Wasn't this announced as 1080p?

Exactly. They announced it as 1080p and built the hype off 1080p, but quietly removed references to 1080p from the website now that people have discovered H2A is actually running at 810p (only 56% of 1080p).
Detective
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:42 PM)
Detective's Avatar

Originally Posted by CookedChocobo

Indeed, but people gotta debate/argue/be pessimistic over something lol.

So the game still 1080p but people argue about nothing?
Really??
Chitown B
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:43 PM)
Chitown B's Avatar

Originally Posted by FUNKNOWN iXi

^

When the BR takes up a significant portion of the screen, then yes, yes I do notice the BR that looks like it has a staircase on its scope.

Plus, I was a 5 Star General in Halo 3 and helped many people get 50's. Want me Waypoint Career resume? Again, fight me.

I don't remember ever paying attention to my BR. You look at the reticle and the opposing players.

There's no point in showing pics if you're just going to say it doesn't look like that in-game. I played 4500 games and I never once worried about the graphics. That's not what it was about.
Guerrilla
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:43 PM)
Guerrilla's Avatar

Originally Posted by dwells

You're right, that's probably a little better, as those images did not have the constraint of needing to be scaled with extremely low latency in realtime and are stills which hide the jaggedness you would see in motion.

No...

what did you even use to rescale those images?
Chitown B
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:44 PM)
Chitown B's Avatar

Originally Posted by dwells

Exactly. They announced it as 1080p and built the hype off 1080p, but quietly removed references to 1080p from the website now that people have discovered H2A is actually running at 810p (only 56% of 1080p).

ok, i'm out. idiots here.
Detective
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:49 PM)
Detective's Avatar

Originally Posted by dwells

How in the world is a compressed screenshot of a compressed video showing a small portion of an image with a smaller rendering resolution disparity of a game with a blurry post-process AA solution a "much better and meaningful" comparison than a comparison of a direct 1080p render and a scaled version?



Exactly. They announced it as 1080p and built the hype off 1080p, but quietly removed references to 1080p from the website now that people have discovered H2A is actually running at 810p (only 56% of 1080p).

Ummmm...What????
This is news to me. Where, when, how and who said it was 810p?
klodeckel
Banned
(06-24-2014, 04:53 PM)

Originally Posted by Guerrilla

No...

what did you even use to rescale those images?

He simply used Photoshop but tuned off bicubic interpolation - which will simply result in those ugly scaled versions. But this is just wrong and in no way representative how the scaler in a Xbox One is working.
clem84
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:55 PM)
clem84's Avatar
Anyone else think this might be... too much? It's great that H2 is getting the anniversary treatment and, sure, why not include H1, but I hope this collection won't prevent them from giving H3 and H4 the anniversary treatment as well further down the road.
Last edited by clem84; 06-24-2014 at 11:25 PM.
dwells
Member
(06-24-2014, 04:55 PM)
dwells's Avatar

Originally Posted by Guerrilla

No...

what did you even use to rescale those images?

Started with a 1080p press image, downscaled to 1440x810 using nearest neighbor algorithm to simulate a native resolution render with per-pixel sharpness, then upscaled back to 1920x1080 using bicubic algorithm to best match the post-update Xbox One scaler.


Originally Posted by Chitown B

ok, i'm out. idiots here.

Constructive reply, nice work.
Vinc
Member
(06-24-2014, 05:04 PM)
Vinc's Avatar

Originally Posted by klodeckel1990

This direct-capture as an example is a much better and meaningful comparison than your Photoshop-edits.



Personally, - without the captions - I would need to look more than twice to see the difference. If we add the a usual real life situation elements like a not-perfect calibrated TV, distance from person to TV, external lights and veiling reflections on the screen glass the difference would be even more hard to see.

But again, let's just wait. They obviously want to get it to 1080p.


You're looking at a 250kb jpeg on your computer monitor and you expect the difference to be as large as when actually playing on your TV... that doesn't make sense for comparison purposes. I'll tell you one thing. I played Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag on PS4 pre-patch, then immediately replayed it after installing the patch. The difference was largely noticeable to me. Not that it didn't look good in 900p, but the clean, sharp looking IQ at native res on my TV is a HUGE upgrade for me. It adds to immersion for me. When you combine that to 60fps, it makes for an amazing experience.

Know that this next comment is not at all directed at you, but I hate when people quite literally shit on or belittle the opinions of people like me who actually care about that stuff. Call us "pixel counters" or whatever. I hate it. It's annoying, it doesn't contribute to the conversation, and it's usually little more than "your opinion sucks".

I agree that IQ comes from a variety of different things. I studied in that damn field. It's just that, for me, 1080p (or just native res, basically) is a huge contributing factor to my eyes. Just like some people are more bothered by aliasing or screen tearing than they are by low framerates or vice versa. Just accept that some people care for valid reasons other than console wars and move on. The difference is there. That 250kb compressed jpeg is not a valid comparison by any stretch of the imagination.
HTupolev
Member
(06-24-2014, 05:06 PM)
HTupolev's Avatar

Originally Posted by Detective

Ummmm...What????
This is news to me. Where, when, how and who said it was 810p?

As far as this thread goes, I did. I heard it from AlStrong and then checked it myself to verify that the claim was reasonable. The value was ascertained by pixel-counting the E3 press footage/screenshots.

Originally Posted by dwells

Started with a 1080p press image, downscaled to 1440x810 using nearest neighbor algorithm to simulate a native resolution render with per-pixel sharpness, then upscaled back to 1920x1080 using bicubic algorithm to best match the post-update Xbox One scaler.

That can sometimes be an okay approach to simulating a low resolution with some scaling factors and imagery, but with modern 3D games you tend to wind up introducing texture aliasing and similar quirks, and the offsets in the sample patterns can result in weird wobbliness. It's usually worth the effort to actually render things at various resolutions to make the point.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
(06-24-2014, 05:07 PM)
FUNKNOWN iXi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chitown B

I don't remember ever paying attention to my BR. You look at the reticle and the opposing players.

There's no point in showing pics if you're just going to say it doesn't look like that in-game. I played 4500 games and I never once worried about the graphics. That's not what it was about.

I was simply commenting on you calling Halo 3 sharp, which factually it was not.

Originally Posted by Chitown B

ok, i'm out. idiots here.

Don't break, man. Take a puff and chillax a little.


EDIT:

Originally Posted by HTupolev

That's debatable. Halo 3's image quality isn't pristine, but I can understand the argument that geometric detail looks "sharp"; you'll cut your eyes on the jaggies, but those edges don't really scream "blurry."

Yeah, I see what you're saying. In that context, I'd say Halo 3 is probably too sharp then. I was more arguing sharp in a positive light.
Last edited by FUNKNOWN iXi; 06-24-2014 at 05:16 PM.
HTupolev
Member
(06-24-2014, 05:09 PM)
HTupolev's Avatar

Originally Posted by FUNKNOWN iXi

I was simply commenting on you calling Halo 3 sharp, which factually it was not.

That's debatable. Halo 3's image quality isn't pristine, but I can understand the argument that geometric detail looks "sharp"; you'll cut your eyes on the jaggies, but those edges don't really scream "blurry."

Thread Tools