I have the KDS 60XBR1 SXRD (the first gen one). I've read that the upscaler is very good, but every single time I see someone on here worrying about whether or not a game will scale to 1080p, and since I could care less since I can't input 1080p anyway, I wonder, what am I missing?

Anything?

I have all resolutions selected and just let the game decide what to output and let the tv upscale it or deinterlace it as necessary. I've always found the picture to look great. A while back I did try to see the difference between games that wanted to do 720p by forcing them to 1080i, and I didn't see a bit of difference, at least nothing major, so I just put it back to letting the system decide.

So, am I missing anything by letting my tv deinterlace, or upscale, vs letting the ps3 do it and output the 1080p signal? Or is the difference virtually undetectable?

I have the same set. From what I have read, the de-interlacer produces a 1080p image (from a 1080i source) that is indistinguishable from a native 1080p input display.

You can search through this thread for more info (if you dare):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=584936&pp=30

I have the same set. From what I have read, the de-interlacer produces a 1080p image (from a 1080i source) that is indistinguishable from a native 1080p input display.

You can search through this thread for more info (if you dare):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=584936&pp=30I've heard the same thing, I was just looking for a little reassurance because it seems like every day there are a few "how do I get 1080p" or "will it have 1080p" or 1080p this or that, I just can't help but wonder if I'm missing out or not.

Heh, I tried to keep up with that thread for a while, but man, it is just too long.

I've heard the same thing, I was just looking for a little reassurance because it seems like every day there are a few "how do I get 1080p" or "will it have 1080p" or 1080p this or that, I just can't help but wonder if I'm missing out or not.

Heh, I tried to keep up with that thread for a while, but man, it is just too long.

Most of the people asking about 1080x support are people with 480x/1080i only TVs. Meaning, their TV has not support 720p (only SD and 1080i). So, if a game doesn't support 1080i, it will default to 480p on such TVs. In your situation, I think you're doing exactly what you should, select all available resolutions, let the game decide, and TV scale. You will avoid unnecessary visual artifacts doing it that way in most cases, as the majority of game seem to default to their native (and optimal) resolution, even if a higher one is available.

PJ,
I originally had my ps3 hooked up to a 1080i samsung (46") and just recently hooked it up to a 1080p samsung (61"). I can honestly say that I did not notice a difference at all (although, I wasn't looking with a critical eye either). They both gave/give a stunning picture...

Most of the people asking about 1080x support are people with 480x/1080i only TVs. Meaning, their TV has not support 720p (only SD and 1080i). So, if a game doesn't support 1080i, it will default to 480p on such TVs. In your situation, I think you're doing exactly what you should, select all available resolutions, let the game decide, and TV scale. You will avoid unnecessary visual artifacts doing it that way in most cases, as the majority of game seem to default to their native (and optimal) resolution, even if a higher one is available.I didn't know that any tv's could take 1080i but not 720p. It would make sense as to why alot of the questions are out there, though.

Just to be clear to anyone who isn't familiar, the early SXRD sets like mine display at 1080p, but cannot accept their native resolution as an input, they can only accept up to 1080i. So technically they are "1080p" sets, but for whatever silly reason, they can't input 1080p. It was funny, at the time, everyone argued that it would never matter because it would be forever until 1080p material came, if ever, lol. And now look :p

I didn't know that any tv's could take 1080i but not 720p. It would make sense as to why alot of the questions are out there, though.



yes, that was true with most of the CRTs out there...480x and 1080i only. I knew of that 5 years ago and made sure to get a TV that would accept 720p signals (yet displayed as 1080i) as plenty of the HD material was 720p at the time...meaning if your TV would not take 720p then no HD for you on those channels! The number of TVs that accepted 720p was very, very low for CRTs.

To the OP...

I once had your exact HDTV (I have the full 1080P 60" SXRD XBR2 now) and posted up this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=754256)about how it works with the PS3. You should be able to find out a lot of god info there written up by myself and others who also have the set.

To answer your question directly, you can play any game at whatever resolution it outputs: 480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i, 1080P. You do not ever have to worry about the problems some people have with 720P games appearing in 480P or 1080i... your set runs them fine.

However, understand that your PS3 will only output a 1080P signal as 1080i so your HDTV can receive it. Your set then converts it to 1080P. Because of this, you technically get the same image as a set that can receive a 1080P signal directly, like the XBR2.

The conversion from (i)nterlaced to (P)rogressive introduces input lag that is more pronounced if you have a lot of the HDTV's processing settings turned on. Even if you turn those settings down or off (which affects picture quality somewhat), it will still exist in a way that you may notice primarily in precision games like fighters or music rhythm games. Running a game in 720P (or 480P for PS2 games) avoids this issue completely.

At the moment, I really don't see a whole lot to worry about. I've also got the KDS-R60XBR1 with the PS3, and it hasn't been an issue. The PS3 games I've played appear to render natively in 720p by preference. I'm not sure what games actually support rendering at 1080p at the moment (as opposed to rendering at the native resolution and upscaling internally, like CoD4), but I don't think there are that many.

The major issue with lack of 1080p inputs is Blu-Ray, and that's not a problem for us. Virtually all material on Blu-Ray at this point is film-sourced 1080p24 (24 fps), and the PS3 outputs it to our sets by doing 3:2 pulldown and interlacing to get 1080i60. The DRC Cinemotion circuitry in the XBR1 is very good at doing inverse 3:2 pulldown to reassemble the original progressive frames from the 1080i input, so we're basically seeing exactly what we would get if the set could accept 1080p.

We both bought our sets in that one-year gap when everybody was making 1080p displays, but nobody had HDMI receiver chips that could accept 1080p input. I've gotten several good years of service out of the XBR1, and expect to get a good many more, so I've got no regrets. 1080p input would be nice to have, but I don't feel crippled by its lack, even with the PS3.

It is better to use 720p or 1080p for gaming rather than 1080i. 1080i is only 30 frames per second. Lots of games out there are 60 frames per second.

^^^ That is incorrect. Games sent through a 1080i signal run at 60 fps as well. And as the person above you stated, Blu-ray movies look exactly the same as a 1080P movie.

The only problem with 1080i is that the HDTV has to convert it to a Progressive (P) signal to display it, and that conversion takes time. As a result, input from your controller when playing a 1080 game will have some lag before the HDTV displays your action. It isn't as easy to feel in 3D games like racers or FPS shooters, but it does exist with no way to resolve it.

^^^ That is incorrect. Games sent through a 1080i signal run at 60 fps as well. And as the person above you stated, Blu-ray movies look exactly the same as a 1080P movie.

No, it is correct. The fields are sent at 60Hz. But an entire frame only gets updated at 30hz. Pixels in a 1080p frame buffer in a game that runs at 60fps will be dropped when the frame buffer is output at 1080i. It is unavoidable.

Interlacing introduces artifacts, and de-interlacing can produce artifacts.

There is no issue with 24fps movies because every pixel of each frame can be reproduced over 1080i.

But when the frame rate goes above 30fps, you will lose pixels.

I have both displays 60" XBR1 and XBR2. Picture quality looks pretty much the same on both displays. I basically set it at 720p to both displays and notice no difference between the two.

1080p for the hi-def movies on the XBR2 since it is in my main room anyway.

Thanks for all of the great input guys.

I definitely do not regret the purchase or anything like that, I just wonder from time to time if there is any reason to upgrade sooner than later. Even though I think the picture is outstanding, I wouldn't know if it could be better until I see better (or hear that it could be). But it is good to know that there is pretty much no reason to worry.

When talking about lag from deinterlacing 1080i, isn't there lag in the ps3 itself when it upscales to 1080p? Is this lag more or less than the deinterlacing lag that the XBR1 introduces? (And I know the 1080p ps3 lag probably doesn't apply to games that render in 1080p natively - not upscale to it that is).

No, it isn't correct. The fields are sent at 60Hz. But an entire frame only gets updated at 30hz. Pixels in a 1080p frame buffer in a game that runs at 60fps will be dropped when the frame buffer is output at 1080i. It is unavoidable.

Interlacing introduces artifacts, and de-interlacing can produce artifacts.

There is no issue with 24fps movies because every pixel of each frame can be reproduced over 1080i.

But when the frame rate goes above 30fps, you will lose pixels.

Read the link I posted above; I owned the TV and went through many, many tests. Because I used to compete hardcore in fighting games, I can definitely tell in an instant when a game I'm playing is 60fps or 30fps (and even 75+ fps from FPS games on the PC).

The 60 fps games I played on the XBR1 when I had it were definitely running at that frame rate whereas 30 fps games definitely run noticeably slower. The only difference was the input lag I've described.

Read the link I posted above; I owned the TV and went through many, many tests. Because I used to compete hardcore in fighting games, I can definitely tell in an instant when a game I'm playing is 60fps or 30fps (and even 75+ fps from FPS games on the PC).

The 60 fps games I played on the XBR1 were definitely running at that frame rate whereas 30 fps games definitely run noticeably slower. The only difference was the input lag I've described.

If you define 60fps as 60 FIELDS per second, then you are right. You will see half of the frame change ever 1/60th of a second. Most likely you will not notice that the other half of the pixels on the screen didn't change. But hey, the sniper that is shooting at you from all the way across the map could be one of those pixels that didn't change because of the interlacing.

If you define 60fps as 60 FRAMES per second, then you are wrong, since half of the frame will not change every 1/60th of a second.

Personally, I prefer to see every pixel that a 60 frame per second game is rendering, and the only way to ensure that is to use a 60 FRAME per second display resolution. If your TV only accepts 1080i and 720p, the only 60 frame per second resolution that the TV accepts is 720p.

Most games are only rendered at 720p, anyway. Particularly 60 frame per second games. And the PS3 does some odd pixel stretching on some games to hit 1080i/p, which might not look all that good.

For a fighting game, as you mentioned you were a fan of, it probably wouldn't make a difference since the action is all close-up and your opponent is always on screen. But in a shooter like COD4, I would want to make sure that I was getting every rendered pixel output to the screen at 60 frames per second. It can definitely make a difference when trying to spot the enemy from across the map.

I'm assuming you don't have the set because your posts continue to rely too much on theory. As a previous owner I am telling you facts.... mboojigga is an owner telling you facts... the games run at the advertised frame rate.

Perhaps you are confused because you missed the part where I explained the games are sent out through a 1080i signal, but they are displayed as a 1080P image. That's how the HDTV works so at no time are you ever looking at an interlaced signal.

Trust me, I can tell on my computer, my PS3, in the arcades, wherever, if I am playing a 30fps game or a 60fps game. The slowness of a 30fps game looks way too obvious and sluggish, and at 30fps it would be impossible to play a 3D fighter with any sense of precision because of how the programmed frame data works.

There are thousands of situations where your next move depends on 1/60th of a second accuracy (i.e. a guaranteed retaliation after blocking a particular attack). With an artificial ceiling of 30fps, your entire game will be thrown off half the time and be completely obvious to the experienced player. Certain combos wouldn't work and certain "just-frame" attacks would rarely come out. Again, I and others tested this many times over - you are definitely incorrect about this HDTV.

I'm assuming you don't have the set because your posts continue to rely too much on theory. As a previous owner I am telling you facts.... mboojigga is an owner telling you facts... the games run at the advertised frame rate.

Perhaps you are confused because you missed the part where I explained the games are sent out through a 1080i signal, but they are displayed as a 1080P image. That's how the HDTV works so at no time are you ever looking at an interlaced signal.

Trust me, I can tell on my computer, my PS3, in the arcades, wherever, if I am playing a 30fps game or a 60fps game. The slowness of a 30fps game looks way too obvious and sluggish, and at 30fps it would be impossible to play a 3D fighter with any sense of precision because of how the programmed frame data works.

There are thousands of situations where your next move depends on 1/60th of a second accuracy (i.e. a guaranteed retaliation after blocking a particular attack). With an artificial ceiling of 30fps, your entire game will be thrown off half the time and be completely obvious to the experienced player. Certain combos wouldn't work and certain "just-frame" attacks would rarely come out. Again, I and others tested this many times over - you are definitely incorrect about this HDTV.

I own a 1080p SXRD. A KDS-60A3000.

You will see motion on the screen every 1/60th of a second. However, only every other scan line of the screen will change. In some games this won't matter. In others, it will. It won't ever matter in fighting games. It can matter in shooting games.

You are talking about PS2 games, anyway, most of which which were interlaced naturally to begin with. In rather odd half frame buffers, no less.

Regardless, de-interlacing can lead to artifacts. I don't see why you would want to introduce that sort of thing into your gaming experience.

Here's a good read on the subject, including graphics that illustrate the sort of thing I am talking about.
http://neuron2.net/LVG/interlacing.html

Interlacing is horrible. I wish that it hadn't been adopted for HD resolutions. :(

As I thought... you don't have that set. The one you have is listed as a full 1080P. I did have the XBR1, as have several others who contributed to my thread link above. We all tested PS3 games at 1080 resolution, not just PS2 (which sends out 480i or 480P signals only).

The SXRD XBR1 can display PS3 games in 1080P, however it only receives the 1080 resolution signal if it is sent from the PS3 in interlaced form, which it then converts to a progressive form. The end result is a 1080P image at up to 60fps whether you want to believe it or not.

I got the green blob on my XBR1 so Sony replaced it with the full 1080P XBR2, so I'm really happy that I don't have input lag from games at the highest resolution anymore. But before I switched I and others figured out exactly what kind of game experience is possible on the XBR1 from hands-on testing, not theories.

As I thought... you don't have that set. The one you have is listed as a full 1080P. I did have the XBR1, as have several others who contributed to my thread link above. We all tested PS3 games at 1080 resolution, not just PS2 (which sends out 480i or 480P signals only).

The SXRD XBR1 can display PS3 games in 1080P, however it only receives the 1080 resolution signal if it is sent from the PS3 in interlaced form, which it then converts to a progressive form. The end result is a 1080P image at up to 60fps whether you want to believe it or not.

I got the green blob on my XBR1 so Sony replaced it with the full 1080P XBR2, so I'm really happy that I don't have input lag from games at the highest resolution anymore. But before I switched I and others figured out exactly what kind of game experience is possible on the XBR1 from hands-on testing, not theories.

Joe,

Everything is always going to be displayed at 1080p60 (1080 lines, 60 times a second) on the XBR1, because that's the native resolution of the LCOS chip and the only format it can display. However, the maximum input format is 1080i60, which means that only 540 lines (one field) are getting sent every 1/60th of a second. It takes 1/30th of a second to send a full 1080-line frame.

You'll still see the screen change every 1/60th of a second, because the XBR1 will update the screen every time it gets a new field, and its deinterlacer will generate a full 1080-line frame every time, using the new field and the previous one. The set's got a very good deinterlacer, so it's not obvious that only half a frame worth of data was received in each update, but the fact remains that a game sending video at 1080i60 is only sending half as much information on each 1/60th-of-a-second update as one sending 1080p60. The fact that it converts 1080i60 to 1080p60 doesn't mean that you get the same results as you would with a set that could receive 1080p60 directly.

And yes, I've had an XBR1 since the month they were released, and it's still going strong. It's a great set, but I do acknowledge its limitations.

I THINK I see what everyone is getting at. So, basically, 60 times per second, the ps3 is sending half the data for a full frame? So, you ARE getting 60fps sent from ps3 to XBR1, BUT, you are only getting HALF the data at 60fps. The rest of the data comes in the next frame. So, the "full data rate" is 30fps, but the data IS being sent at 60fps, so it will seem smooth, because of the good deinterlacer. Half the data being sent at 60fps will be smoother than all of the data at 30fps. That is why we can still tell the difference between 30fps games and 60fps games.

Now, people are saying that it might matter, that you "technically" receive data that is similar to 30fps or whatever.

But, from what I can tell, unless said sniper (or whatever data) is being drawn using ONLY one horizontal pixel width, and that data happens to be on the line that didn't update for that 1/30th of a second, then you will see him. Even if he's being drawn using 2 horizontal pixel widths, then you should see (half) of him just fine, every 1/60th of a second. (Half of him the first 1/60th of a second, and the other half the next 1/60th of a second - total time to see ALL of him = 1/30th of a second).

If I understand this correctly, then I suppose that someone could make a test program for this, where every other horizontal line is a different color or something, and every 1/60th of a second, the colors change. If this were viewed with 1080i input vs 1080p input, you should notice a big difference, right? Like the colors would band together into 2 horizontal widths every 1/60th of a second? Or something like that anyway. But that is a very unrealistic example to exploit the 1080i. In the real world, I guess it is unlikely that you are looking for any details that are ONLY one pixel width in height, at a rate faster than 1/30th of a second.

Does this all seem correct?

Dixie... nothing you said conflicts with my post. I was emphasizing the final output, which is 1080P at 60fps, but I've acknowledged problems too. My original post was to show where the problems with this setup occur, which is not in the final image but in the negative effect on control precision.

As you point out, a process occurs to get the 1080 resolution interlaced signal to be progressive. That process takes time, so the XBR1 displays the final image late.

That is the key point I've been making. What you do with the controller and what you see on screen are not in synch as they are in a native progressive signal (480P, 720P). You feel that delay as you play (as subtle as it is) in any game, but definitely more in precision games. For me, the solution was to simply play every PS3 game in 720P since the input lag caused by 1080i isn't worth it IMHO.

Dixie... nothing you said conflicts with my post. I was emphasizing the final output, which is 1080P at 60fps, but I've acknowledged problems too. My original post was to show where the problems with this setup occur, which is not in the final image but in the negative effect on control precision.

As you point out, a process occurs to get the 1080 resolution interlaced signal to be progressive. That process takes time, so the XBR1 displays the final image late.

That is the key point I've been making. What you do with the controller and what you see on screen are not in synch as they are in a native progressive signal (480P, 720P). You feel that delay as you play (as subtle as it is) in any game, but definitely more in precision games. For me, the solution was to simply play every PS3 game in 720P since the input lag caused by 1080i isn't worth it IMHO.

That's not quite my point -- your previous posts make it sound like the end result of the XBR1's deinterlacing of 1080i is equivalent to what you'd get with a 1080p input. I'm trying to make it clear that that's not the case -- the bitrate of a 1080i60 signal is half that of a 1080p60 signal, so the set is only receiving half as much data for each progressive frame it puts on the screen, and fudging the rest. That can have a definite effect on image quality. The other issue is that it's a lot tougher for programmers to get a game to output 1080i and have it look good than it is to output a simple progressive signal.

The lag is also a consideration, although it does really depend on what you're playing.

The sxrd or any other fixed pixel display isnt capable of producing an interlaced image. It always shows an upconverted 1080p image regardless of the source material and said material only looks as good as the processing behind it.

The only tvs capable of truly interlacing are crts.

Lag does play a small factor in sxrds but its very minimal from my experience as Im a very good gamer with a level 45 in both halo and COD4... able to play guitar hero3 on expert also so I think that says a lot about how the lag isnt much of an issue. Just my 2cents from a fellow sxrd owner.

Do you guys run your SXRD's in Direct Mode? I have noticed quite a bit less lag when playing 1080i demos. I leave it in that mode and have not had a problem with any game since.

Dixie: As you may agree, each company's deinterlacing system is likely unique from other companies, and may vary even within the company on different sets. I won't pretend to know how Sony does it for this set, but I can only comment on the results as I did frequently at this site when I owned it.

The reason I even started that thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=8959720&postcount=17) when I first signed up here is because no one knew my frequent questions on how 1080i input-->1080P output affected gaming. I had the XBR1 before the PS3 was launched, and in the HDTV forum no one had much to say about how visuals, input control lag, etc. in games would be affected because the overwhelming reason for those people owning the set at the time was video and film.

Here we are some time later and we don't have to rely on theory as much. I, and others here at this forum with that exact HDTV can only report what we discover from extensive testing. The main thing I came away with is that the visuals are not impacted in any significant amount except a very slight, barely noticeable "hiccup" every now and then when things are in motion.

To see this hiccup, download the Cash, Guns, Chaos demo (a 1080P/60 fps) and kill all the bad guys. Now instead of exiting the level, stand in the center and simply hold the controller to the right to spin your character in place. This causes the top-down camera to spin as well, and every now and then you will see the very slight hiccup if you have it set to 1080i output on the XBR1. Read more on this issue in this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=8959720&postcount=17) I made awhile back.

The rest of the visuals were indeed the same to all of us who ran tests. For instance, mboojigga has it AND the XBR2 (full 1080P) and reports that games look the same. Here's another person (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9084532#post9084532) who has both sets reporting it too. So to me the hiccup, while present, wasn't the reason I would have stopped using 1080i if I still had it because it looked just fine overall, but the slight lag present was the clincher since I need the precision in fighting games.


Killakaipo: You mention stellar scores in a rhythm game like Guitar Hero... that's a 720P game and wouldn't be affected. Even if it allowed 1080i output you can still get perfect scores through conditioning of inputting button presses slightly earlier than someone with no lag. Predictable song patterns makes this possible, but a fighting game is unpredictable.

Also, any 1080P FPS and driving games would not be affected in a noticeable way either because of the genre type... people can more easily adjust to that because if you are ever so slightly off it won't matter too much like Tekken 5: DR which demands that every 1/60th of a second be accounted for to execute your strats properly. In my thread, you see I completed 95% of Ridge Racer 7 (1080P/60fps game) with the lag because the lag is very slight before Tekken 5: DR came out and proved to me that input lag existed at 1080i.


Smurf Byte: You can use Direct Mode or manually turn off extra processing. This helps a lot in general, but doesn't eliminate the problem completely because of the time it takes to take an interlaced signal and deinterlace it for a progressive display... again this is only if your PS3 game is sending a 1080i signal. You can have lag on any resolution with any HDTV if too many image processing settings are turned on. Also, Game Mode has an effect as well.

Dixie: As you may agree, each company's deinterlacing system is likely unique from other companies, and may vary even within the company on different sets. I won't pretend to know how Sony does it for this set, but I can only comment on the results as I did frequently at this site when I owned it.

The reason I even started that thread when I first signed up here is because no one knew my frequent questions on how 1080i-->1080P affected gaming. I had the XBR1 before the PS3 was launched, and in the HDTV forum no one had much to say about how visuals, input control lag, etc. in games would be affected because the overwhelming reason for those people at the time was video and film.

Sorry, I never saw your questions. I could have told you the same thing back then. :)


Here we are some time later and we don't have to rely on theory.

What we are talking about with respect to interlacing 60fps games is not theory. It is fact.

The deinterlacer is doing its job, but as described problems will always exist. Try and explain any disagreements to the people who own BOTH the XBR1 and XBR2 and say what I am saying here. I've owned both as well (while you've owned neither)... it isn't theory.

BTW, your link posted above is about deinterlacing as it applies to video and/or film. This is specifically about videogames. The two are different so the final visual output isn't the same, which may be way your frequent theorizing is conflicting for you with what you see here. This image from your link showing artifacting:

http://neuron2.net/LVG/intheadblend.jpg

Doesn't look that way in a game because a game is not film or video. Each pixel, in a frame or field, gets its own distinct space to be on or off at the time it is told to do so by the console. There's no unintentional motion blurring or pixel blending that naturally occurs with video/film. Of course none of us knows all the exact differences and similarities between video and computer graphics, but to be sure they DEFINITELY are not the same thing when it comes to this issue.

The deinterlacer in the XBR1 does whatever tricks it was designed to do in order to make the interlaced signal coming in look as natural as possible in the final output. Those tricks cause slight input delay in games, which is more noticeable than any visual degradation (which none of us who owned the XBR1 say is present outside the hiccup).