I can , the scaler on xb1 while improved , is easy to spot , from my experience
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo Master Chief Collection: H1-4. H2 full remaster. 1080p60. $59.99 Nov 11 Xbox One
- Thread starter anchorman128
- Start date
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.
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-the-master-chief-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.
Der Flatulator
Member
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.
This is not how it would look...
Pixels don't have to be square, but they can be if they're hip. :V
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.
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
Member
Um...no..
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
The Librarian
Banned
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
Sharp? Halo 3 might be the jaggiest game on the 360.. Hyperbole not included.
Der Flatulator
Member
Just cropped the images above:
1080p:
810p upscaled:
1080p:
810p upscaled:
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.
The Librarian
Banned
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
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
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
Cute. Skip the post above the one you quoted and see who I was responding to.
Try and follow along next time buddy.
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.
do you look at your BR while you're playing? you must die a lot...
Summer Haze
Banned
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
Yeah, LOD distance. They should also increase the distance at which character shadows are rendered too while they're at it.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
^
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
Indeed, but people gotta debate/argue/be pessimistic over something lol.
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).
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.
ok, i'm out. idiots here.
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.
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.
Constructive reply, nice work.
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.
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.
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
I was simply commenting on you calling Halo 3 sharp, which factually it was not.
Don't break, man. Take a puff and chillax a little.
EDIT:
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.
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."