gregor7777 said:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html
From my understanding of that article, if you're on a 1080p set, you want all of your content to display as 1080p (upscaled or native) for the best picture.
I may be wrong though.
Excellent read, either way.
Thanks for the link. I have seen that before actually. In most cases, they're right, you do just want to set the device to 1080p and leave it at that.
The 360 is a 720p native source though, so that means you're not going to be losing any information, or having the image scaled twice if you have it set to 720p (with games that render at 1280x720 at least) which means you can either set the 360 to 1080p and have it upscale the image, or leave it at 720p and have the TV upscale it to 1080p. From my experience, most decent TVs have a sharper image when you let them handle the upscaling rather than have the 360 do it. You'll also avoid any potential performance issues (tearing in Dead Rising, for example) if you leave it in 720p.
In the case of something like Halo 3 which is rendered at 1152x640 though, the 360 would be scaling to 1280x720 and the TV would then scale that to 1080p. Scaling twice is something you want to avoid at all costs. (which is why they recommend you just set everything to 1080p) Now, the 360 can't just output 1152x640 as that's not a proper video signal so it will look best when the 360 is set to 1080p as that means things should only be scaled once.
That's why it would be best to have an option on the 360 that would output 720p native game at 720p, and everything else at 1080p. (and personally I'd like to see an option to disable the scaler entirely for people using monitors over VGA, and possibly DVI/HDMI) It would mean you get a sharper image with 720p native games, and scaled ones look as good as they can.
Nostromo said:
They didn't sacrify 80 vertical pixels, they sacrified 27% of a 720p image.
20%, not 27%.
1280x720 = 921,600px, 1152x640 = 737,280px
921,600 - 737,280 = 184,320px
921,600 x 0.2 = 184,320px.
maus said:
Very annoyed. Sacrificing 80 vertical pixels may have been a good move in order to incorporate more effects, however the big issue is the lack of AA. Without AA, THE ENTIRE IMAGE IS DEGRADED... severly in my opinion.
Dynamic shadows are still in their early stages imo and are very blocky and unconvincing. Just look at the opening cinematic; when the shot cuts to a close-up of Johnson, the self-shadowing just looks glitchy and ugly. People thinking it looks good are kidding themselves (i'm referring to specifically the dynamic shadows, not the HDR or lighting). If Bungie could have toned down the "Advanced lighting engine" and had enough power to do AA, color me annoyed.
People with the "SHUT UP IT'S HALO 3, IT'S AMAZING" responses are killing me. The fact is that it is Halo 3 and Bungie made it look like a pixelated mess. This isn't some 3rd party experiment, this is the biggest damn game on the system.
By lighting, they mean the way that objects are lit in the environment, not how the shadows are being drawn. The lighting in Halo 3
is amazing, but yes, the shimmering pixels you get due to the scaling is distracting. You
really need to have the signal 1:1 mapped to your display with Halo 3, and preferably you'll be running in 1080p.
If you're currently using a HDTV with a 1366x768 native resolution and using 720p (or worse, 1080i) over component, switching to a VGA lead and outputting 1360x768 should look a lot cleaner.
marvelharvey said:
I'm so happy I just spent $5000 on a new TV, when my previous HDTV would have sufficed.
Uh, you didn't think Halo 3 was going to be 1080p native, did you?
