| W29 said: 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. |
Uhh, you could argue, but I think very few people would agree. Does anyone argue that using AA gives you a higer resolution? Sure, FSAA renders the scene at a higher resolution then downscales, but that doesn't give you more resolution, just a better picture.
This method though doesn't even render at a higher resolution. It renders the same image, at the same resoultion, using different lighting parameters, then combines the images.
Not that I care that they've used 1152x640 anyway (all the screenshots look fine), it is the usual internet nitpicking, but that there is the type of PR spin I have become extremely cynical about.
