I have an xbox360 but are unable to access 1080p on my 360, the screen goes blank when I select it, I have a pioneer kuro elite pro150fd , so I know I'm able to watch things in 1080p any info would be appreciated.

Thanks

I don't think the pro150fd accepts 1080p over component. If your Xbox 360 has an HDMI port, use that. If not, try the VGA cable.

Or just use 720p -- virtually all games are 720p anyway.

Or you can set it to 1080i and let your Kuro do the deinterlacing to make it 1080p.

Or you can set it to 1080i and let your Kuro do the deinterlacing to make it 1080p.

For the Xbox that doesn't necessarily make sense. Since it's outputting a real 720p/60 signal, you can't reconstruct all the information simply by deinterlacing 1080i -- you'll be losing some vertical resolution.

720p is probably the best here, especially if you can turn off overscan.

So the XBox 360's 1080i setting isn't an interlaced 1920x1080? Why the hell would they call it 1080i then?

Gee, I had an arguement a couple of days ago about choosing 1080i over 720p if a game/video was 1920x1080 natively. <__< Then all the Tv would do is deinterlace the 1920x1080 signal (if the Tv does it correctly).

But if the 360 doesn't even have true 1080i, then that arguement goes out the window.

So the XBox 360's 1080i setting isn't an interlaced 1920x1080? Why the hell would they call it 1080i then?

Gee, I had an arguement a couple of days ago about choosing 1080i over 720p if a game/video was 1920x1080 natively. <__< Then all the Tv would do is deinterlace the 1920x1080 signal (if the Tv does it correctly).

But if the 360 doesn't even have true 1080i, then that arguement goes out the window.

Define "true 1080i".

P.J.

So the XBox 360's 1080i setting isn't an interlaced 1920x1080? Why the hell would they call it 1080i then?

Gee, I had an arguement a couple of days ago about choosing 1080i over 720p if a game/video was 1920x1080 natively. <__< Then all the Tv would do is deinterlace the 1920x1080 signal (if the Tv does it correctly).

But if the 360 doesn't even have true 1080i, then that arguement goes out the window.

it has to do with the FRAME RATE.

30fps or 24fps content in 1080i has the EXACT SAME PICTURE in the even and odd fields...a deinterlacer can perfectly reconstruct it to 1080p60. When you go to 60fps, where every frame can be different, you can't deinterlace it perfectly as the even and odd fields can be different...they may not "line up" so to speak.

I have an xbox360 but are unable to access 1080p on my 360, the screen goes blank when I select it, I have a pioneer kuro elite pro150fd , so I know I'm able to watch things in 1080p any info would be appreciated.

Thanks

I don't think the pro150fd accepts 1080p over component. If your Xbox 360 has an HDMI port, use that. If not, try the VGA cable.

Or just use 720p -- virtually all games are 720p anyway.

If you are using component then what chrisherbert said is correct. I also have the pro150fd and it will only accept 1080p over HDMI.

Thanks,

Rod

it has to do with the FRAME RATE.

30fps or 24fps content in 1080i has the EXACT SAME PICTURE in the even and odd fields...a deinterlacer can perfectly reconstruct it to 1080p60. When you go to 60fps, where every frame can be different, you can't deinterlace it perfectly as the even and odd fields can be different...they may not "line up" so to speak.

Not many games are running more than 30 fps. Movies are 30 or 24fps. So, 1080i would be fine in most cases.

Adding an interlaced signal into the mix causes the TV to have display lag. Do you want 30+ms of lag in response to your button pushes? Do some research before you go nuts with your 1080i stuff. 1080i should have never been invented, it's only used to confuse people who think higher number = better.

All plasmas are progressive scan, give them a progressive signal. The end. You can afford Pioneer plasma but not an HDMI Xbox/cable? Seriously now.

it has to do with the FRAME RATE.

30fps or 24fps content in 1080i has the EXACT SAME PICTURE in the even and odd fields...a deinterlacer can perfectly reconstruct it to 1080p60. When you go to 60fps, where every frame can be different, you can't deinterlace it perfectly as the even and odd fields can be different...they may not "line up" so to speak.

Okay then as an example, I'll use Ridge Racer 7 (a 60fps 1080p game on the ps3).

I've tested it in 1080i on my 1080p TV, and it displays just fine, with no noticeable lag or artifacts.

Are there exemptions to this 1080i/60fps issue? I sure as hell don't see it there. I can however 1080i artifacts on certain sources like upconverting DVD's to 1080i on the 360.

All plasmas are progressive scan, give them a progressive signal. The end.

Not all plasmas are progressive nowdays.

Jesus Christ! I wish people her would stop recommending 1080i out of a console for anything that is not an HD CRT. For any fixed pixel display, using an interlaced signal is just retarded.

You'd think with this being AVS, everyone would have this figured out by now. :)

Jesus Christ! I wish people her would stop recommending 1080i out of a console for anything that is not an HD CRT. For any fixed pixel display, using an interlaced signal is just retarded.

You'd think with this being AVS, everyone would have this figured out by now. :)

Then why is it that a Blu-Ray (on ps3) being outputted at 1080i on a 1366x768 display looks better than being outputted at 720p? Gee, perhaps it's because a 1920x1080 signal downscaled to 1366x768 is better than upscaling a 1280x720 signal to 1366x768.

It isn't as clear cut as you progressive junkies may think.

I have a 1080p tv so I don't have to choose, but I also have a 1366x768 display that I use as a secondary TV, and 1080i on the ps3 DEFINITELY looks better than 720p IF the source is 1920x1080 NATIVE. If the source is 1280x720p to begin with, then obviously 720p is the best choice. I don't know about the 360 deintrlacing and downscaling properly, but the ps3 does this with no issue, from my own experience.

Wanna argue, get yourself a ps3 and test it out yourself.

You know the real reason some people recommend it is because it doesn't really make a noticable difference on alot of sets. I have a 788p LCD and have tried both setting with component and HDMI. No noticable difference lag or picture wise. I would say just let the OP try both and see if he can even notice a difference. My guess is he probably won't.

I assume you mean 768p.

Nope. 788p. Here's the pixel count: 1,092,168.

I have NEVER seen a 788 LCD.

I've seen 1280x720, 1280x768, 1360x768 and 1366x768 displays.

Never 788. What's the exact resolution of your lcd in the method I mentioned?

Then why is it that a Blu-Ray (on ps3) being outputted at 1080i on a 1366x768 display looks better than being outputted at 720p? Gee, perhaps it's because a 1920x1080 signal downscaled to 1366x768 is better than upscaling a 1280x720 signal to 1366x768.

Because Blu-Ray movies are usually recorded at 1920 x 1080p 24 frames per second on the disc. The player when outputting 1080i, takes those 24 frames and creates 30 frames, which is 60 interlaced fields (1080i) by a process known as 3:2 pulldown, which many HDTVs can reverse, extracting the original 24fps movie and displaying it progressive, as it was intended. Understand that this reversal process is NOT the dreaded de-interlacing process that is done for true interlaced source material. Absolutely nothing is lost here.

So, forget the fact that the 24p original movie was carried over a 1080i link on the way to the TV. Many TVs can recreate precisely the original 24 frames per second, with no loss or artifacts. Once we've got that down, it's simply a matter of comparing whether it's better to upscale 720p to 768p, or to downscale 1080p to 768p and here I agree, it's better to downscale. But this applies only to source material that is at 24fps. For source material at 60fps, there is an advantage to outputting 720p and having the TV upscale to 768p, as for the 360's scaler to create 1080i from 60p source, it must discard either half of the 60 fps, or half the lines from each frame. That loss, may or may not be more noticeable than the loss incurred by upscaling 720p to 768p. It rather depends on the TV. Some TVs may do a such bad job of upscaling from 720p to 768p, that you get a better picture by having the 360's scaler throw away every other frame of the original 60fps and upscaling to 1080i. That way, although there is fps loss, the TV's downscaler may introduce less artifacts in the downscaling process from 1080 to 768.

In the case of a TV that accepts 1080i but not 1080p, then there would be no scaling necessary by the TV, but you've still lost fps by having the 360 output 1080i instead of 720p. Here again though, if the TV's upscaler is really poor, then when it upscales 720p to 1080p, that may introduce enough objectionable artifacts, that it's better to go with 1080i and suffer the fps loss. If this is the case for your TV, then be happy. Stick with 1080i.

Ignoring the issue of fps loss, if I had to bet on which upscaler was better, the TV's or the 360's, I'd put my money on the 360.

P.J.

Okay then as an example, I'll use Ridge Racer 7 (a 60fps 1080p game on the ps3).

I've tested it in 1080i on my 1080p TV, and it displays just fine, with no noticeable lag or artifacts.

Are there exemptions to this 1080i/60fps issue? I sure as hell don't see it there. I can however 1080i artifacts on certain sources like upconverting DVD's to 1080i on the 360.

if the source is truly 60fps, then there are artifacts. You may not notice them, though.

I have NEVER seen a 788 LCD.

I've seen 1280x720, 1280x768, 1360x768 and 1366x768 displays.

Never 788. What's the exact resolution of your lcd in the method I mentioned?

That's why I gave you the pixel count. So you could do the math for yourself. 1386x788. I've never seen a million dollars. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It was a very popular set when it came out coming in 60, 55 and 50 inches made by Sony.

That's why I gave you the pixel count. So you could do the math for yourself. 1386x788. I've never seen a million dollars. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It was a very popular set when it came out coming in 60, 55 and 50 inches made by Sony.

You got me stumped also. Were these on Sony's Plasmas? I have never seen 788 myself. You got a link to these Sony displays you speak of.

A quick googling up of 1386x788 seems to show the result that one guy mistyped "1386x788" one time and a bunch of people just kept spreading the misinformation. Gooling up "1366x788" and "1386x768" brings up just as many instances where people are mistaken about their native display resolution. :)

Nothing to see here.

A quick googling up of 1386x788 seems to show the result that one guy mistyped "1386x788" one time and a bunch of people just kept spreading the misinformation. Gooling up "1366x788" and "1386x768" brings up just as many instances where people are mistaken about their native display resolution. :)

Nothing to see here.

Wrong. That's a pretty methodical way to figure that out. Google some resolutions and see what comes up. :rolleyes:

This is the reason why I gave the pixel count that is not only in the manual, but on Sony's website.

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=1551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11040961&SR=sony_search_seo&SQS=60xs955

It made no sense to many of us owners here on AVS. I found out from Samsung when I tried to find out why their upconvert DVD player wouldn't output 1366x768 to my tv even though the manual said it was an option for the player. I too first believed my tv was 768p and the rep thought so too. So I thought it was pretty ridiculous that my 768p tv couldn't accept a 768p signal via HDMI. After doing some research he realized that with the pixel count given it was impossible for the tv to be 768p because it didn't divide evenly into the pixel count. The only number that did was 788p. So when the player communicated with the tv, it didn't communicate that it was 768p.

I came to this forum and talked with many owners who THOUGHT that people were just making typos in their post. Talking with a Sony rep, I asked what the resolution was. He couldn't officially tell me that the set was 788p but I got the point.

Here's one of many times it was brought up in the thread for owners of that model series.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13823531&highlight=788p#post13823531

"After doing some research he realized that with the pixel count given it was impossible for the tv to be 768p because it didn't divide evenly into the pixel count. The only number that did was 788p."

Pff! That's your reasoning? Okay then. Why isn't it 792p then? 792x1379 is 1092168 as well. :)

What we know with certainty, and what my quick google test did was show that the TV is very poorly documented. As such, it is just as easy to not believe the original number of 1092168, as it is to believe that this is all a simple matter of some people repeating the same damn typo over and over. :) Hell, the original number of "3.28 million dots of resolution" that Sony states could just as easily be intended as a "perceived" resolution, and never meant to accurately describe an exact pixel count. It wouldn't be the first time a TV maker obscured numbers to hide possible PR issues. It also wouldn't be the first time Sony made up some numbers based off of undisclosed criteria. :)

Here's another resolution for you. 924x1182. Damn close to 4:3 and still equals up to 1092168. Run it through a anamorphic lens and you can easily get a 16:9 image out of it. Plus, given that human vision is more sensitive to vertical resolution than horizontal, the resulting image would be sharper than your guess of 788p. Given a budget of 1092168 pixels, and given that a custom scaler would already need to be built, then this would be the smarter resolution for Sony to go with in order to give the consumer the best image within their self-imposed constraints.

I know, too much math. It just annoys the hell out of me when people try to pass of half-ass conjecture as fact. Just because 1386x788 was the first answer you found that seemed to make sense, doesn't automagically make it the right answer.

I have NEVER seen a 788 LCD.

I've seen 1280x720, 1280x768, 1360x768 and 1366x768 displays.

Never 788. What's the exact resolution of your lcd in the method I mentioned?

I have -- my Sony KDF-60XS955. ;)

Source: (http://www.buy.com/prod/sony-kdf-60xs955-60-grand-wega-3lcd-projection-hdtv/q/loc/111/202973400.html)
"Native Resolution: Since the KDF-60XS955 has a native display resolution of 1386 x 788, all input signals will be displayed at 1386 x 788. The TV has three 0.87" Wide XGA LCD panels, one for each RGB (red, green, blue) signal that each resolve 1.09 million pixels to deliver a clear, crisp, precise picture."

There's no resolution stated on Sony's site, but Sony identifies the pixel count on this set at 1,092,168 Million Dots per Panel, which matches 1386 x 788 as stated above.

EDIT: here's another source for the 1386 x 788 resolution (http://www.fixya.com/support/p228263-sony_grand_wega_kdf_60xs955_60_in_rear/manual-19052/page-4) (4th one down under Sony).

DaverJ - You're linking to buy.com sales content, which was more than likely the result of the content monkey googling up "kdf-60xs955 resolution" and copy/pasting whatever looked like the most commonly thought of resolution when the "native resolution" field came up in their product form. :) Your second link is a user generated repair site, which suffers from the exact same problem. This time it is some random guy doing the googling, not even a "qualified" salesman.

You might as well be linking to a post in this very thread as proof. Or quoting yourself from a different thread on this same forum as proof. :)

Anyone know of a search engine that will let you sort by date? I bet we can find the first forum post where someone mentioned "1386x788" and follow the line of who copied that piece of conjecture.

DaverJ - You're linking to buy.com sales content, which was more than likely the result of the content monkey googling up "kdf-60xs955 resolution" and copy/pasting whatever looked like the most commonly thought of resolution when the "native resolution" field came up in their product form. :)

How about actual Sony marketing (http://www.iq.sony.com/srvs/DocsConnect/docget.asp?manualid=99897&DL=',600,560,10,10,'Manuals')")...? Is "3.28 million dots resolution" also typo or incorrect??? :confused:

"Is "3.28 million dots resolution" also typo or incorrect?"

I already responded to the "3.28 million" back at post #25. The two paragraphs with meat are all directly related to that point.

Here's the exact point that I am trying to make. There is a whole lot of reasonable doubt that 1386x788 is the proper resolution, and a grand total of ZERO proof. There is some conjecture that supports it, but very little to back that conjecture up. If the person that originally divided 1092168 out had picked 924x1182 as his likely resolution, then we would probably be having the exact opposite argument right now. A couple people supporting 924p as the "one true resolution", and me holding up my hand saying "788p works too. Where is the actual proof in support of 924p?"

You owners of the display can do a lot of guessing at what the resolution is, but until you tear the thing apart, bust out the high-power microscope, and do some serious counting, you aren't going to know. I guess some design docs would work to, but if those aren't already available, then what is the likelihood that they will be later?

So what's the purpose of Sony standing behind that exact pixel count? I think it allows them to have to say that the set isn't 768p.

Why choose 788p? Because it's the closest you could come 1366x768 number wise.

Why google? Go to Sony's website and read for yourself what they state the actual pixel count is.

And if everybody is guessing you can't be so sure that we are wrong. Bottom line 788p is the simplest explanation. :)

Actually he's correct about the 1386x788 resolution. Sony used panels of that resolution for many of it's LCD rear projection TVs. My 60WE610 for instance uses this resolution. Here's a link to the product page that actually states the resolution:

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=KF60WE610
Three wide XGA LCD panels, one for each RGB (Red, Green, Blue) signal that resolve 1,092,168 million dots. This provides a total picture resolution of 3.28 million dots for crisp, precise picture detail.
Three Wide XGA LCD Panels: 3.28 Million Dots Resolution (1386 x 788 x 3)

Why they used this oddball resolution is a mystery.

if the source is truly 60fps, then there are artifacts. You may not notice them, though.

Well, just looking at it with my eyes, It DEFINITELY still looks better at 1080i than 720p. Much more detail. IF there is any artifacts (not that I doubt you), it's a non-issue as the level of detail of the downscaling easily beats just marginally better movement with 720p.

RR7 is 60fps. Without a doubt. All recent Ridge Racer games (even the psp version) runs at 60fps.

"Here's a link to the product page that actually states the resolution:"

Woo! Finally something from a reputable source that states this oddball resolution! Thanks sperron. :)

Pff! That's your reasoning? Okay then. Why isn't it 792p then? 792x1379 is 1092168 as well. :)

It's a 16:9 screen... how are you doing any math that says 1092168 pixels on an HDTV comes out to anything other than 1386 x 788? :confused:

(...oh wait, you do have an interesting theory coming...)

As such, it is just as easy to not believe the original number of 1092168, as it is to believe that this is all a simple matter of some people repeating the same damn typo over and over. :)

Why are stuck on this "typo" theory? You haven't pointed to anything anywhere that even remotely validates your conspiracy theories and reveals my set's resolution being anything other than 788p. Yet I have linked Sony's original specs, retail claims (which is full of other accurate info), and 3rd party tech support sites that all state a resolution that equals 1386 x 788. Oh, and here's another (http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/Sony-Grand_WEGA_KDF-60XS955.htm), another (http://www.amazon.com/Remanufactured-Sony-KDF-60XS955-Projection-Television/dp/B000IEY9GO), another (http://www.crutchfield.com/S-VbL52L3xu3x/App/Product/Item/Main.aspx?g=153950&I=15860XS955), and another (http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/sony-lcd-projection-tv.html) -- all written very differently but all agree on the resolution.

Could it simply be the truth and *gasp* you've never heard of 788p as a real, honest-to-god resolution? :)

Hell, the original number of "3.28 million dots of resolution" that Sony states could just as easily be intended as a "perceived" resolution, and never meant to accurately describe an exact pixel count.

Come on... what reason would a precise number from Sony (and others) of 1092168 x 3, or 3.28 million, be anything other than accurate? :confused: "perceived" resolution....? Where are you coming up with this? Why is it so hard for you to believe that there may be some A/V information you aren't familiar with, especially with a TV that you have no first-hand experience with?

Here's another resolution for you. 924x1182. Damn close to 4:3 and still equals up to 1092168. Run it through a anamorphic lens and you can easily get a 16:9 image out of it. Plus, given that human vision is more sensitive to vertical resolution than horizontal, the resulting image would be sharper than your guess of 788p. Given a budget of 1092168 pixels, and given that a custom scaler would already need to be built, then this would be the smarter resolution for Sony to go with in order to give the consumer the best image within their self-imposed constraints.

Or Sony could just be taking the simple route of 1386 x 788, a 16:9 resolution in-between 720p and 1080i that scales both beautifully. Your theory sounds like it would incur all sorts of geometry problems. I'll give you points for creativity though. :)

I don't have a real good picture of my set showing accurate geometry, but this from a couple years ago is the best I have on hand:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/356406200_c5fb9ccfc4_o.jpg

It just annoys the hell out of me when people try to pass of half-ass conjecture as fact.

*cough* *cough* :D

Sorry to throw sarcasm your way James, and I hope by the "smiley" there you understand I'm not attacking you. I don't think I can ever convince you that your understanding of the situation is wrong, so I should just stop trying. I think I've backed up my position well with links, and I'm firm on my knowledge of the resolution of my TV. If you or someone else can show me clear evidence contrary to what I've stated (not unproven conspiracy theories about "repeated typos" or wild technical guesses) to alternate resolutions, I will certainly consider it.

I'm willing to be enlightened and correct my understanding.

A little late DaverJ. He just conceded the point in the post before that one you just made. ;)

A little late DaverJ. He just conceded the point in the post before that one you just made. ;)

DAMN... I labored over that post too long!!!! :D

Are we sure he wasn't being sarcastic in his concede? :confused: He's tricky that way.... :p

EDIT: MY APOLOGIES for the thread hijack!!! :o 788p or no, it has nothing to do with 1080p and the OP. [head down in shame, leaving the room...]

http://www.amazon.com/Remanufactured-Sony-KDF-60XS955-Projection-Television/dp/B000IEY9GO

Gotta love this link. :) Let's quote, shall we?

"The set's 1,366 x 788 liquid-crystal display..."

If you're going to use further user generated stats, one might recommend using ones that match up to the numbers you are trying to prove. :)

Oh crap! How about this one?

http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/sony-lcd-projection-tv.html

"Sony make use of 3 different 1,366 x 788 wide-XGA format..."

Again, the only use of "788" on the page that you linked to. Again, doesn't match up to what you are trying to prove. Hey, I'm just pointing out that within your own proof there is some pretty bad disagreement. :)

Doesn't really matter anyway. Sperron already came up with a source that at least has a fairly reasonable chance of being correct on the chip's resolution.

The original point still stands though. When there is very limited information regarding something, once one person comes up with a possible answer, people have a terrible habit of grabbing onto that one possible answer and holding it up as indisputable truth.

DAMN... I labored over that post too long!!!! :D

Are we sure he wasn't being sarcastic in his concede? :confused: He's tricky that way.... :p

EDIT: MY APOLOGIES for the thread hijack!!! :o 788p or no, it has nothing to do with 1080p and the OP. [head down in shame, leaving the room...]

It's okay. He probably was being sarcastic like you said. If you read one of my posts in this thread, I put in a link to the Sony website showing the specs for our specific model. If you go by his theory, there still is no proof since our models are xs955 and the one from sperron is we610. But thanks sperron for posting that.

This all came from me saying that he probably meant 768p. :( My question was answered. The end.

Well, just looking at it with my eyes, It DEFINITELY still looks better at 1080i than 720p. Much more detail. IF there is any artifacts (not that I doubt you), it's a non-issue as the level of detail of the downscaling easily beats just marginally better movement with 720p.

RR7 is 60fps. Without a doubt. All recent Ridge Racer games (even the psp version) runs at 60fps.

It's a 1080p game, so I can understand it looking better at 1080i than 720p, at least in some respects. 99.9% of Xbox 360 games render at 720p or lower, so it's first scaling the image to 1920x1080p, which introduces artifacts, then sending it out interlaced, which introduces artifacts and reduces the vertical resolution if the game runs at more than 30 frames per second. If you just set the Xbox to 720p, you're getting every frame and pixel rendered by the Xbox, perfect and untouched.

After playing RR7 EXTENSIVELY yesterday, I couldn't stop noticing the difference in the resolution of the other cars I was racing. In 1080i they were DEFINITELY missing some detail.

I know see what you guys are saying. It's hard to see, but it's there. While slow pans and static images are perfectly rendered, fast moving objects look a lot less detailed, as if missing some data.

All in all, 720p was better since although some details were soft, they were all consistent.

I apologize for the long debate, but I had a reason. It does look more detailed in certain areas of the game with 1080i. 1080p certainly showed me where 1080i was failing.

So all in all 1080i = 1080p on set that is progressive natively IF the source is 30fps or less. If it's 60fps, 1080i drops one field. This is assuming that the 1080i source is 1920x1080 native, and not a 720p signal converted to 1080i for those with sets that can't accept 720p. I see that now. learning something new every day.