as many of us know most 360 games are displayed at 720p. some even lower-so given that you have a tv and a console that can give you the option to set the resolution at 1080p, should we? i'm thinking the answer is no. i also understand from other sources that doing so can cause more input lag(if any)than usual. i understand there are other problems as a result of doing this as well. i'm not going to get into all of the details as most of you already know. i say set your 360 to 720p and let your tv do the rest of the work. my A650 has been on 720p for a week now. my 360 hasn't seen those days since i had my Samsung LNS3251d(classic tv)

thoughts?

My 360 is set to 1080p. I have a samsung LN-T4061 and it's connected via VGA. I've tried both and I like 1080p for my VGA input. It looks sharp and kinda like a computer monitor.

meh...i've experienced better color accuracy and less gaming lag going back to 720p. the only true 1080p content available is blu ray. so F IT

My 360 is set to 1080p. I have a samsung LN-T4061 and it's connected via VGA. I've tried both and I like 1080p for my VGA input. It looks sharp and kinda like a computer monitor.

Same here, Samsung (HLT-5689S) LED DLP, connected via VGA, set @ 1080p. No lag at all. Colors pop to me.

I think leaving it on 1080p is better since its less processing the tv needs to do.

with vga it's known that you get no lag during gaming. hdmi is another issue

56" Sammy with HDMI set at 1080p. No lag and looks great.

The 360's scaler is actually quite good, and better than what's in many TVs. Additionally, some 1080p TVs allow you to turn off overscan (a good thing with games) only if they're receiving a 1080p or 1080i signal.

So I'd vote for 1080p, in most cases.

Set it to 1080p. The PS3 WISHES it could upscale all their games like the 360.

And I agree with the 360's upscaler trumping most interanl TV scalers.

Sony A2000 at 1080p via HDMI

42LG50 with the XBOX360 at 1080P...looks awesome and no lag as far as I can tell...

Set it to 1080p. The PS3 WISHES it could upscale all their games like the 360.

And I agree with the 360's upscaler trumping most interanl TV scalers.

I have my 360 set at 1080p..why not? it looks great. The ps3 will not upscale games to 1080p for some reason, its a great upconverting dvd player and blu rays look great.

I still havent figured out why my ps3 XMB is in 1080p and then when I put a game in it goes to 720p:confused:

I got a Samsung 46" LN46A550 1080p LCD. Using HDMI with the 360.

I didnt think it would make a difference. But....looking at the red Back button where u change resolution, it looks smoother on 1080p vs. 720p. I havent really looked at the difference in games yet. But that lil sign right there should say if u have 1080p, use it.

These pics might help:


720p:
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g203/jroc7474/Picture011.jpg

1080p:
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g203/jroc7474/Picture010.jpg

Even if these pics dont really help, just change it and look at the red Back button.

Whether or not you should set the 360 to 1080p really depends on the quality of the scaler in the TV and whether you get a better image by having the 360 or the TV scale the image up to 1080p.

In my case, I have a Sony Bravia XBR2 1080p LCD. I've had my Elite 360 connected to the TV via HDMI and have had it set to 1080p since I bought it because to my eyes, the 360 does a better job of scaling the graphics to my TV's resolution. I've never experienced any lag and have played most of the high profile games (the sole exception being the Guitar Hero/Rock Band games as I have no interest in those).

Pioneer Elite Kuro PRO-151FD set to 1080p. Set the tv to dot by dot mode zero over scan goodness. I dont feel any lag at all, and the picture is to die for.

I'm playing in 1080p via HDMI on a 46" Samsung LCD w/ all processing off ("Game Mode") -- it looks great, no discernible lag.

btw, great comparison pics jroc. :cool:

1080p all the way, HDMI on a 52 inch Samsung LCD with no lag.

I still havent figured out why my ps3 XMB is in 1080p and then when I put a game in it goes to 720p:confused:
- The PS3 doesn't have a dedicated scaler. So it defaults to a game's native resolution in most cases.

I think the TV is going to introduce more lag when it has to scale the image, rather than having the console scale it. Plus when playing games that are sub 720p you are having the console scale to 720, then the TV to 1080, and we all know that double scaling is not what you want.

my 360 is set to scale to 1080p, connected via vga, 1:1, no post processing.

eh...i'm very picky on these type of things. it's probably because i go looking for it and what not. so i'm expecting to see it

as many of us know most 360 games are displayed at 720p. some even lower-so given that you have a tv and a console that can give you the option to set the resolution at 1080p, should we? i'm thinking the answer is no. i also understand from other sources that doing so can cause more input lag(if any)than usual. i understand there are other problems as a result of doing this as well. i'm not going to get into all of the details as most of you already know. i say set your 360 to 720p and let your tv do the rest of the work. my A650 has been on 720p for a week now. my 360 hasn't seen those days since i had my Samsung LNS3251d(classic tv)

thoughts?

I own a 52650 and you DO NOT want to set the Xbox to 720p. Scaling is the WORST thing to let this TV do from my tests. Feed the TV 1080p at all times and keep most of your image tools off. The Xbox is a much much better scaler than our TVs.

I've been prepping a 650 lag report for a while now. I Just need some new equipment to come in so I can finish it off. (DVDO for PS3 tests)

You'll get 20ms+ extra lag from sending it a non 1080p signal via HDMI.

I own a 52650 and you DO NOT want to set the Xbox to 720p. Scaling is the WORST thing to let this TV do from my tests. Feed the TV 1080p at all times and keep most of your image tools off. The Xbox is a much much better scaler than our TVs.

I've been prepping a 650 lag report for a while now. I Just need some new equipment to come in so I can finish it off. (DVDO for PS3 tests)

You'll get 20ms+ extra lag from sending it a non 1080p signal via HDMI.

let me know how that works out. lol

I usually do 1080p the text look better for some reason.

Running the 360 at 1080p to my 1080p Bravia...looks awesome,no lag.

I have it on 1080 but I'm stuck with component so it looks like garbage compared to PS3 no matter what I do.

1080p via HDMI to my Pioneer Kuro 6020.

i have mine set to 1080p. when i first hooked it up it was in 720p since i was using it on a 720p TV before and it didnt look as good.

I have 2 of my 360's set to 1080p. One hooked up to my 65" panny plasma and the other to my 37" Panny LCD. I clearly see a difference between 1080p and any other resolution. I first saw the difference on my friends 46" Sony LCD and did a comparison between HDMI 1080p and the other resolutions. Definitely a noticable difference. 1:1 is perfect (I double checked with an overscan pattern sent through the 360).

My 360 is set to 1080p. I have a samsung LN-T4061 and it's connected via VGA. I've tried both and I like 1080p for my VGA input. It looks sharp and kinda like a computer monitor.

Why VGA over HDMI?

FX/XAA Version: SX07
January 2008 Build
MODULE-TULPAUSC-1019, DATE:
MICOM: T-TULPAUSS-1011, ACL: T-TULPAUSG-1009
KERNEL:


Is this really necessary in your signature? :confused:

I have my 360 set to 720p and connected to a Pioneer Elite PRO-150. I personally find the 360s scaling capabilities really bad when compared to the Pioneer thus my 720p setting. I also find the 360 to be an extremely poor DVD player when compared to my 5 year old Denon DVD-5900.

Rod

42LG50 with the XBOX360 at 1080P...looks awesome and no lag as far as I can tell...

Hey, I have the same display. 360 set to 1080p through VGA and it looks excellent, for the most part. I do have a problem though with text like in the menus. There is a slight ghosting effect when ever there a hard edges on a light background. Have you or anyone else noticed this? I have adjusted the TV settings all over the place and can't get it to go away.

Edit: I'm not talking about movement ghosting, I mean a static edge has a slight ghost of itself about 1/4" from the edge.

Thanks, any advice is much appreciated.

Samsung HLT-6187SAX LED DLP connected via HDMI (50' cable from Denon 1909 AVR) running the 360 set to 1080p...... no issues whatsoever.

Hey, I have the same display. 360 set to 1080p through VGA and it looks excellent, for the most part. I do have a problem though with text like in the menus. There is a slight ghosting effect when ever there a hard edges on a light background. Have you or anyone else noticed this? I have adjusted the TV settings all over the place and can't get it to go away.

Edit: I'm not talking about movement ghosting, I mean a static edge has a slight ghost of itself about 1/4" from the edge.

Thanks, any advice is much appreciated.

What brand of VGA cable are you using?

i had my elite hooked up via hdmi to my sammy 50in. plasma.....looked good but recently hooked it up with the red/green/blue cables so i could run fiber optic from the plug on the 360 to my AVR to get better sound....picture still looks good on 1080p even though its not hdmi but im currently runnin it on 720p

What brand of VGA cable are you using?

It's one I picked up at Game Crazy. I don't remember the brand.
Do you think that could be the problem? If so, would the monoprice cable be any better or do I need to look for the MS original?

Thanks

Why VGA over HDMI?

Sorry, I just saw this. When I meant that I've tried both, I meant 720p and 1080p. Not VGA and HDMI. I have an older 360, no HDMI.

I have a Samsung 46a630 and the xbox is hooked up to it via component cables, I also have the 360 vga cable and don't notice much difference with lag or pq when gaming. I waiting to see some hard test results before commiting to either one.With the component I play in game mode , with the vga it is not available either are a lot of the other functions.

If thats the case, those 360 VGA cables are waaay better than my PS3's. I can see a big difference when I tried that for my PS3. With my PS3, VGA's = cloudy looking screen.

Wait a min, I did VGA vs. HDMI with the PS3. But still, VGA's had a cloudy look.

If thats the case, those 360 VGA cables are waaay better than my PS3's. I can see a big difference when I tried that for my PS3. With my PS3, VGA's = cloudy looking screen.

Wait a min, I did VGA vs. HDMI with the PS3. But still, VGA's had a cloudy look.

What did you use to get PS3 via VGA? I didn't think it supported it.

What did you use to get PS3 via VGA? I didn't think it supported it.

he had to of meant component

i'm not really sure how you could confuse the two lol

i'm not really sure how you could confuse the two lol

Maybe he means the "Video Game Attacher" cable. lol

Yea I was tripping. I meant composite cables. lol

Yea I was tripping. I meant composite cables. lol

Are you sure you mean composite? Composite is horrible and should never be used.

i had my elite hooked up via hdmi to my sammy 50in. plasma.....looked good but recently hooked it up with the red/green/blue cables so i could run fiber optic from the plug on the 360 to my AVR to get better sound....picture still looks good on 1080p even though its not hdmi but im currently runnin it on 720p

In the box with your elite you should have gotten a dongle/adapter that will allow you to plug in optical sound out, as well as hdmi at the same time. Check it out!

I have a Samsung 46a630 and the xbox is hooked up to it via component cables, I also have the 360 vga cable and don't notice much difference with lag or pq when gaming. I waiting to see some hard test results before commiting to either one.With the component I play in game mode , with the vga it is not available either are a lot of the other functions.

One major difference (that may not matter to you at all) is the Xbox will upscale DVDs to 1080p over hdmi and vga only, not component. Just my 2 cents.

I connect my Xbox360 via HDMI and the image quality deteriorates, specially when I play Tiger Woods 09. It was a lot better when I used component. So, for me, 720p is the sweet spot, for now.

hmm strange

I have a Sony SXRD 1080p with a new XBOX 360 I got for Christmas and the game (COD 5) seems to lag on line via the component cables set at 1080i. So I have set it at 720p and the game seems smoother. This only applies to XBOX Live on-line play. I ordered an HDMI cable for the the 360 via mono price really cheap. I am hoping I will be able to play the game at 1080p with smooth frame rates on-line with the HDMI cable.

as many of us know most 360 games are displayed at 720p. some even lower-so given that you have a tv and a console that can give you the option to set the resolution at 1080p, should we? i'm thinking the answer is no. i also understand from other sources that doing so can cause more input lag(if any)than usual. i understand there are other problems as a result of doing this as well. i'm not going to get into all of the details as most of you already know. i say set your 360 to 720p and let your tv do the rest of the work. my A650 has been on 720p for a week now. my 360 hasn't seen those days since i had my Samsung LNS3251d(classic tv)

thoughts?

Yes most games are 720p but there are a few that are 1080i(Mass Effect, Gears of War 2, GRAW 2...) and you won't get that resolution if your X360 is set to 720p.

Yes most games are 720p but there are a few that are 1080i(Mass Effect, Gears of War 2, GRAW 2...) and you won't get that resolution if your X360 is set to 720p.

All the games you listed render at 720p.

Yes most games are 720p but there are a few that are 1080i(Mass Effect, Gears of War 2, GRAW 2...) and you won't get that resolution if your X360 is set to 720p.

games aren't rendered at interlaced resolutions.

"games aren't rendered at interlaced resolutions."

Xbox 360 games aren't rendered at interlaced resolutions, you mean.

no, NO GAME is rendered interlaced (or progressive for that matter).

a frame buffer dumps a resolution, XXX or XXXX lines tall, it is neither interlaced nor progressive, it's just a resolution.

there is no such thing as a 1080p frame buffer. The frame buffer is 1080 pixels tall (and presumably 1920 wide) regardless of whether it is ultimately sent to the TV as an interlaced or as a progressive signal.

argument stays the same, there are no 1080i rendered games (specifically on the 360) as the cost of 1080i vs 1080p is the SAME, and the game would simply be 1080p native.

"no, NO GAME is rendered interlaced (or progressive for that matter)."

There are a couple thousand games on the PS2 that would beg to differ.

Yeah, the framebuffer would essentially be 240x640, but these 240 lines are not the same 240 vertical lines each time that buffer is filled. Rendering the 240 odd lines, followed by the 240 even lines sounds like the very definition of interlaced rendering to me, and to any reasonable person.

You know, formula, it's okay to admit that you are wrong sometimes. You don't have to so vehemently defend your ideas when it turns out that they aren't true.

my point is that no games are rendered at 480i, or even 480p, they're rendered at 480 lines, and the video chip AFTER the rendering process completes the frames for display.

no 360 game would be marketed as "Rendered at 1080i" because it wouldn't take any more resources to output 1080p, they both come from the same 1920x1080 rendering.

but yes, since this is the xbox forum, i was speaking more specifically towards the xbox 360, (though every other game console is the same)

"my point is that no games are rendered at 480i, or even 480p, they're rendered at 480 lines"

That is exactly the issue though. Your "point" is wrong. The vast majority of the PS2 library rendered in what can only be described as interlaced, with alternating framebuffers of 640x240.

Again, the vast majority of 480i PS2 games are not rendered at 640x480, then tossing out half the lines from or interlacing the resulting image.

DLJ, I will fully admit that I am not an expert on PS3 video pipeline, but I believe you are mistaken.

For a computer program to display an interlaced image, it has to render the full frame, not half the frame like you are contending.

The problem is that when you have an interlaced image, the image A and image B COMBINED to make a full frame. It is not like a progressive frame 1 and frame 2 which are completely independent, interlaced images include every OTHER line of the same frame.

That means that when a computer produces an interlaced image, it creates a full frame then discards every other line and on the next frame, it discards the alternate lines.

If you didn't do that, your image would shift up and down on each interlaced frame which would result in blurry image and severe eye strain.

This is why computers don't like doing interlace outputs.

"This is why computers don't like doing interlace outputs."

This is why current computers... Interlaced output was pretty common for computers up until the late 80's/early 90's.

"I will fully admit that I am not an expert on PS3 video pipeline"

We aren't talking about the PS3.

"The problem is that when you have an interlaced image, the image A and image B COMBINED to make a full frame. It is not like a progressive frame 1 and frame 2 which are completely independent, interlaced images include every OTHER line of the same frame.

That means that when a computer produces an interlaced image, it creates a full frame then discards every other line and on the next frame, it discards the alternate lines."

Your attempt to correct me shows a complete lack of even the most basic understanding of interlacing. Your "image A" and "image B" do not necessarily combine to make a full frame. They are two individual fields. The broadcast television that we all grew up with has proven that out plenty good for the last 70 years, thank you very much.

Let's make this simple. Take 640x240 field #1. Render it. Shift our software's "camera" viewpoint down one pixel. Move forward in time 1/60th of a second. Render field #2, still 640x240. Shift camera up. Pass 16.7ms. Repeat.

You end up with two 240 line fields that are rendered in two distinct periods of time. This is the very definition of interlacing, and is exactly how 70 years of 480i television has done it. Claiming anything otherwise is just ignorant.

Why does the PS2 do this the vast majority of the time? The machine is horribly starved for RAM. Spending 0.5MB to render a field is vastly preferrable to spending 1.0MB to render a frame that half of the lines are going to be thrown away from. In turn, you get a 1MB total framebuffer vs 2MB, a vast difference when dealing with 4MB that you are trying to cram a framebuffer and textures in to.

The only reason we got 480p out the PS2 for later games is because after years of beating their heads against the hardware, devs figured out how to use the 32MB of main memory for texture storage without incurring a drastic performance loss. This left the 4MB of embedded graphics ram open for exclusive use for framebuffers and software shaders.

Funny sidenote. The Dreamcast rendered to 480p at all times, then decimated the output to the required format. The thing was designed as a texturing monster that was extremely easy to develop for though. :)

Hey sport, since you obviously have a complete lack of understanding when it comes to computer graphics, I will type real slow and use a lot of pictures in hopes that you might, might understand.

Here is an image that you are trying to show on your computer monitor:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

The way interlace display works is that they skip every other line on each frame. So the 1st frame of the above picture would look like this:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

While the 2nd frame would look like this:


BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

When you show these two frames by shifting the gun of the CRT tube between frames, you get a whole image that flickers a bit. The CRT's and televisions (and the analog cameras) achieved this effect by PHYSICALLY shifting the gun position. Unfortunately, you can't shift things physically, when you are calculating digital images. So you have to fake it.

If we do what you are proposing, i.e. just shift the image 1 pixel down (I am not even sure what the best way to do that WITHOUT forming a frame, but I digress), the image would look like this:

The 1st Frame:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

2nd Frame (with 1 pixel shifted down):

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

When you combine them, you get:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

....umm, I am guessing that is not what you want.

You MIGHT have actually meant that you compose the entire image with 1/2 less lines.

However, when you do that, that means each line of pixel will have to contain more image, so you will get a blending of each lines (like AB and BC) like this:

1st Frame:
ABABABABABABABABABAB

CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC

EFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEF

2nd Frame:
BCBCBCBCBCBCBCBCBCBC

DEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDE

FGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG

Which, when combined would produce a blurry image:
ABABABABABABABABABAB
BCBCBCBCBCBCBCBCBCBC
CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC
DEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDE
EFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEF
FGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG

Neither of these options are particularly good. But wait, you say, what if you just render ever other line of pixel?

Sure, I say, and the best way to render that image is to create a full frame and discard every other line.

WHICH IS EXACTLY HOW COMPUTERS HAVE BEEN HANDLING INTERLACED IMAGES SINCE THE BEGINNING!!!

There isn't some magic code or API that lets you automatically skip lines in a frame. You have to calculate to see what you would leave in and what you would leave out. At which point you would negate any performance gain you may have had due to processing half the lines of graphics.

I hope this has been educational for you...

"Sure, I say, and the best way to render that image is to create a full frame and discard every other line. "

And the fallacy in this logic is exactly what you don't understand. I can't explain this any more plainly for you, so I'm done trying.

"Sure, I say, and the best way to render that image is to create a full frame and discard every other line. "

And the fallacy in this logic is exactly what you don't understand. I can't explain this any more plainly for you, so I'm done trying.


there is no fallacy in his logic.

field 1 and field 2 make up frame 1

field 1 is comprised of the odd lines from buffer 1

field 2 is comprised of the even lines from buffer 2

the buffer refreshes every 1/60th of a second (60hz, matches AC power frequency in the US) and full frames (comprised of 2 completely different (buffer) images) can be displayed @ 30fps (assuming we're talking progressive output).

I can't explain it any more plainly for you either, formula. :)

Please stop trying to justify your flawed logic regarding a subject that you obviously understand just barely enough to enable statements that are even more wrong than if you knew nothing about the topic at hand.

i really didn't want the thread to turn into this.

What brand of VGA cable are you using?

I just switched to the official MS brand VGA cable. The image is fantastic now, no more static image ghosting or any other problems. It seems the Pelican cable I was using caused all of my image quality problems.

i really didn't want the thread to turn into this.

it's ok :)


on another note, i picked up a 47" and moved the 37" to the office, still using the VGA cable (ms) and 1080p to the display.

Sigh... you just can't help them all...

1080p you moron

you juicing?

You know the one thing people tend to overlook is the field of view difference between 720p and 1080p. If you look at the same scene in 1080p as you would in 720p, you can see more on the screen. images may appear smaller in 1080p but more expanded. I did this with fallout 3 on my Pioneer PRO-151FD. When I set the 360 to 720p the images looks zoomed in and not as imerssive. When I switch to 1080p, I see more on the screen and the image just look more expansive. Plus with that added benefit of zero overscan 1080p becomes the most logical choice on my display.

" I did this with fallout 3..."

Fallout 3 is rendering the exact same 720p image no matter what you have your 360 outputting. Your FOV theory is all down to how much your display is overscanning incoming resolutions. There is no FOV difference between the 360 spitting out 720p and 1080p or even 480i, for the vast, vast majority of the games, if not every single one.

you juicing?side effect from my testosterone boosters

Glad I found this thread, I always had my 360 set to 720, I have a reon in my projector.

I tried 1080p output and the difference was much better, there was less lag for sure playing cod. And the image looked just as good as the 360 upscaling as the reon. As someone mentioned it will also avoid double scaling for games that are weird resolutions.

On my ps3 however, I got the exact opposite. The show for instance I had the ps3 output at 1080p, and the game was not nearly as smooth as when I set it to its native resolution of 720p, and let my projector upscale. The difference was noticeable, it was much smoother gameplay wise.

As someone mentioned is this because ps3 has no dedicated scaler? Do games that allow 1080p upscale themselves?

As someone mentioned is this because ps3 has no dedicated scaler? Do games that allow 1080p upscale themselves?
- The PS3 does have an internal scaler, but not like the Xbox360. The problem is that the PS3 can't always do this because of the resources required.

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/16/

The person that wrote that article for Beyond3d is a goddamned ******. In short, he is pulling a bunch a poorly educated guesses directly out of his ass, and passing them off as fact. I especially love his arguments against rendering directly to 1080i, stating issues that the PS2 has no problem with when rendering to 640x240, 480i framebuffers. Same technique, different numbers.

It seems that only one pulling a bunch a poorly educated guesses directly out of his ass is you...