Bungie reaffirms faithfulness to Xbox 360

??

by posting a videogame story that involves a videogame maker and a videogame console?

like I said before.

Fanboys=idiots.

Shut up honky. That's the 2nd time TODAY you've played that card and it doesn't hold any more water this time than it did last.

480i = SD
480p = ED
> 480p = HD

Halo 3 is only one of MANY games on both the 360 AND PS3 that scrifices a few lines of resolution in favor of better lighting effects, shading etc. Resolution doesn't make a game. CoD4 did the same thing as has many others. Deal with it.

Its all ED until you hit 720p.

Uh, PAL is 625 lines and it's definitely not HD, since it's been around 30 years.

Yes because being HD is so essential to the actual gameplay. That's why I couldn't enjoy Halo.





Fucking tool.

couldn't care less.

Shag and LS2/LS7,

PAL standards are different than NTSC, which further proves that the term "HD" is relative. In America, if I own an "ED" TV, I will NOT be able to see all the lines of resolution of Halo 3 (upscaled by the hana chip to 720p OR the native output of the game before it hits the hana chip at 640p). In order to see every line Bungie encoded on the disc I will have to buy an "HD" TV, which in America means it has a resolution of 720p or higher. This does not mean 720p is the minimum definition of the term "HD", it just happens to be the standard resolution TV manufacturers decided on (standards are good BTW, my 485i TV made by some Chinese knock off brand has some annoying letterboxing issues *sarcasm*)

In Europe, if the PAL standard is 625 (i or p?) then the jump to "HD" simply won't be as impressive (which may be why HD adoption rates are much lower in Europe) as you're only adding 95 lines as opposed to 240 in the States. But according to your logic, if by chance some country utilized a standard of 719p, they wouldn't have an HDTV until they upgraded to the new fangled sets which had that extra line of resolution, at which point suddenly the picture would look amazing.

Sony would have you believe that you're not watching real HD unless you own a "Full HD" 1080p capable set. Until next year anyway when they release a model with higher resolution which will be pitched as "Fuller" HD. However I'll continue watching "Half Assed" HD at a puny 720p resolution and keep kicking myself for being suckered into a purchase of a TV which obviously isn't qualified to have the nebulous "HD" qualifier branded on the frame...

You can call 640p high res if you want. It is not HDTV resolution, even though it does look noticeably better than DVD resolution.

I do have a 1080p HDTV, although I used to have a 1368x768 one (roughly 720p) and I don't deny that's HDTV.

I don't expect we'll see >1080p TVs next year since there is no standard for >1080p and thus no content available. They'll exist (I saw HDVS systems in 1988) but they won't amount to anything in the marketplace.

LS2/LS7,

That's the thing, I WOULD consider 640p "hi-res", because it's in camparison to 480p. The term "HD" is a nebulous descriptor that has been marketed as a title. High definition is a relative term.

If you think 720p is the minimum standard for the title of "HD" then you had better have a talk with Sony, who branded some 1st generation CRT TV's as "HD" even though they only supported 1080i, which is just a 540p signal interlaced on screen. Last time I checked, 640p > 540p and 540p = HD, which means according to linear logic, 640p = HD.

As for my example of "Fuller" HD, that was hyperbole. The fact is that 1080p sets were launched waaaaaay before even 720p sets were common consumer items and further complicated and confused the HD moniker.