List of all 1080P display devices for PS3 - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 218 Old 06-02-2005, 01:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
ps24eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You don't understand that to do 1080i on a fixed panel display you need to have 1920x1080 pixels.

current dlp's cannot display 1080i without downrezzing for this reason (they only have 1280x720 amount of pixels).


thus you NEED 1080p in order to do good old 1080i on a fixed panel display without downrezzing.


This is our fault for not explaining this earlier. I think we assumed that you understood this basic fact.
ps24eva is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 218 Old 06-02-2005, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HeadRusch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
The viewing distance is based on resolution so it is less for a 1080p display than it is for a 1080i display.
Uhhhh, I think view distance is based on the view angles from your primary seating to the edges of the screen and making sure you are maintaining that "big screen effect". Resolution obviously affects what you see, but is irrelevant to that equation.

As for 1080i versus 1080p, you can sit 2 feet away from a 1080i display and never see a scanline...making the value of 1080p versus 1080i a moot point if you ask me. Kinda like the difference between getting a slice of stale bread to eat (480i) versus some buttered fresh bread (480p) versus a slice of tasty pie (1080i!). :)
1080p would be like Pie...with a scoop of ice cream. Better, sure, but not really necessary if the pie itself is any good.

(.....damn now I'm hungry)

The whole Interlaced versus progressive thing is a funny topic to me. People arguing "its only half the resolution, progressive is so much better!".....progressive is better, but only for eliminating the motion artifacts caused by interlacing.
Otherwise....virtually identical. Now at 480 ..its noticible. At 1080, its not noticible.....well, perhaps if you're one of those people who hunts for problems.

And then at 1080p, people will complain about jagged edges :)
And demand full screen anti-aliasing of their 1920x1080p displays!!!

Xbox Live / PS3 / Steam: HeadRusch1
Keeping the world safe from the evil antics of Bernie Tanaka and Mel Fujitsu since 1986

HeadRusch is offline  
post #183 of 218 Old 06-02-2005, 06:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
Uhhhh, I think view distance is based on the view angles from your primary seating to the edges of the screen and making sure you are maintaining that "big screen effect". Resolution obviously affects what you see, but is irrelevant to that equation.
Viewing distance is the distance that you can sit from a display based on resolution and screen size. For instance this post earlier in the thread has a link where you can download a table which allows you to calculate viewing distance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
As for 1080i versus 1080p, you can sit 2 feet away from a 1080i display and never see a scanline...making the value of 1080p versus 1080i a moot point if you ask me. Kinda like the difference between getting a slice of stale bread to eat (480i) versus some buttered fresh bread (480p) versus a slice of tasty pie (1080i!). :)
1080p would be like Pie...with a scoop of ice cream. Better, sure, but not really necessary if the pie itself is any good.
How big was the display that you could not see the effects of interlacing on at 2 feet away?


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
The whole Interlaced versus progressive thing is a funny topic to me. People arguing "its only half the resolution, progressive is so much better!".....progressive is better, but only for eliminating the motion artifacts caused by interlacing.
Interlacing reduces the vertical resolution of an image. The amount varies based on motion but for an average movie it reduces the vertical resolution to around 700 lines.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
Otherwise....virtually identical. Now at 480 ..its noticible. At 1080, its not noticible.....well, perhaps if you're one of those people who hunts for problems.
Look at small text on a 1080i display and you will see that interlacing is noticeable even at 1080i.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
And then at 1080p, people will complain about jagged edges :)
And demand full screen anti-aliasing of their 1920x1080p displays!!!
Understood the joke but believe it or not the reason jagged edges in games are not as noticeable on interlace displays is because interlacing actually decreases the vertical resolution. As such you do not see the jagged edges, or anything else, as well as you would on a progressive display.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #184 of 218 Old 06-02-2005, 06:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HeadRusch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
Viewing distance is the distance that you can sit from a display based on resolution and screen size. For instance this post earlier in the thread has a link where you can download a table which allows you to calculate viewing distance.
I was referring to something more along these lines in my comments on "proper viewing distance"....http://www.myhometheater.homestead.c...alculator.html

The link you post above is something about what the eye can actually resolve so how much detail can be seen at any certain distance...maybe I'm taking the simple route here.

Quote:
How big was the display that you could not see the effects of interlacing on at 2 feet away?
My 65" RPTV set, at 2 inches from the screen you cannot see scanlines.
From 4 feet away (much too close for even a "small" 65" set, you cannot see interlacing artifacts on 1080i sources, forget about from 8 feet away, or 10 feet).

Quote:
Interlacing reduces the vertical resolution of an image. The amount varies based on motion but for an average movie it reduces the vertical resolution to around 700 lines.
???? Huh?

1080i - The picture is 1920x1080 - (60/2 interlaced frames per second...so 30fps)

Or are you about to go all "abstract video engineer" on me here.....and take it into the realm of volts and frequency dropoffs and such....??? IF you are..well, I can't argue that point so I'll say "whatever you say I guess is true because I can't argue the point with you".

Quote:
Look at small text on a 1080i display and you will see that interlacing is noticeable even at 1080i.
Ah, but this I can comment on....my point exactly. If I have to go hunting for it, its not worth my time. 480i versus 480p is an obvious upgrade, even from across the room, when things start moving around. 1080i to 1080p, if I have to start getting up close to the screen and looking at small text......becomes irrelevant. Now....1080i versus 1080p..30 complete frames per second versus 60 complete frames per second.....I give you that might be noticible in some applications like games.....but for movies? 24fps? I dont think it matters.

Xbox Live / PS3 / Steam: HeadRusch1
Keeping the world safe from the evil antics of Bernie Tanaka and Mel Fujitsu since 1986

HeadRusch is offline  
post #185 of 218 Old 06-02-2005, 08:23 PM
 
CrocHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps24eva
You don't understand that to do 1080i on a fixed panel display you need to have 1920x1080 pixels.

current dlp's cannot display 1080i without downrezzing for this reason (they only have 1280x720 amount of pixels).


thus you NEED 1080p in order to do good old 1080i on a fixed panel display without downrezzing.


This is our fault for not explaining this earlier. I think we assumed that you understood this basic fact.
I'm not too tech savy with resolutions so, no i did'nt understand it.
CrocHunter is offline  
post #186 of 218 Old 06-02-2005, 10:28 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
ps24eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
Now....1080i versus 1080p..30 complete frames per second versus 60 complete frames per second.....I give you that might be noticible in some applications like games.....but for movies? 24fps? I dont think it matters.

1. 24fps is the natural format for movies.

2. Movies, even today with regular dvds, are first teleclined into a high-def 1080P, 24Hz "master archive file" from which our dvd's are finally dervied.

blu-ray will allow us to finally watch these "master archive files" with their superior quality.


Thus I think 1080P at 24Hz is important:)
ps24eva is offline  
post #187 of 218 Old 06-02-2005, 10:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
ps24eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
1080p at 24 Hz was important enough to be included in our ATSC standards as well.
ps24eva is offline  
post #188 of 218 Old 06-03-2005, 04:48 PM
Senior Member
 
TYBZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
Viewing distance is the distance that you can sit from a display based on resolution and screen size. For instance this postInterlacing reduces the vertical resolution of an image. The amount varies based on motion but for an average movie it reduces the vertical resolution to around 700 lines.
Richard, could you go a little deeper into that, it seems like an interesting concept. That would be appreciated :)
TYBZ is offline  
post #189 of 218 Old 06-03-2005, 05:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
My 65" RPTV set, at 2 inches from the screen you cannot see scanlines.
From 4 feet away (much too close for even a "small" 65" set, you cannot see interlacing artifacts on 1080i sources, forget about from 8 feet away, or 10 feet).
The effects of interlacing affect the level of detail in the picture. As such even if you do not see any interlace artifacts that does not mean you are not losing picture detail because of interlacing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
???? Huh?

1080i - The picture is 1920x1080 - (60/2 interlaced frames per second...so 30fps)

Or are you about to go all "abstract video engineer" on me here.....and take it into the realm of volts and frequency dropoffs and such....??? IF you are..well, I can't argue that point so I'll say "whatever you say I guess is true because I can't argue the point with you".
Nothing that abstract. The 700 lines I am talking about is the resolvable resolution that can be achieved on a 1080i display. In other words a 720p display actually has a perceived vertical resolution that is higher than that of a 1080i display. It can get far more complex than that but the simple truth is that interlacing reduces the actual perceived resolution of a display. A progressive display at 720p can show you 720p pixels worth of information. On the other hand a 1080i display can only show you around 700 pixels of information and can actually get lower depending on the amount of motion in the image.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TYBZ
Richard, could you go a little deeper into that, it seems like an interesting concept. That would be appreciated :)
Though I have explained some of it in the above paragraph the details of interlacing are very disputed so different people will give different figures. Personally I believe an average decrease in perceived resolution of 70% is about right.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #190 of 218 Old 06-04-2005, 09:38 PM
Newbie
 
Lenster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New York City, NY
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps24eva
Help me make a list!
The 1080P is more than likely a compliment for the Blue Ray DVD.
Lenster is offline  
post #191 of 218 Old 06-06-2005, 02:32 PM
 
iboon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: On the Map
Posts: 524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFB
Neither can the front projector (004 I think and about $30K).
...Because nothing relevant outputs 1080p. Who cares.
iboon is offline  
post #192 of 218 Old 06-06-2005, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by iboon
...Because nothing relevant outputs 1080p. Who cares.
By next year there will be several sources of 1080p video such as Blu-ray/HD-DVD, PS3, and HTPCs.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #193 of 218 Old 06-06-2005, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HeadRusch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 41
...and the players will likely start off costing around $500-$1000 at first and be buggy as hell...

...and there will be only a handfull of movies available, many of which you will already own in your DVD collection, so you'll have to shell out another $20+ bucks to get the HD version.

...and at 1080p watching a 37" set is the same as watching 720p since HD differences dont really even become that apparrant until you are watching on a truly large screen like 65 or 92 inches...

Xbox Live / PS3 / Steam: HeadRusch1
Keeping the world safe from the evil antics of Bernie Tanaka and Mel Fujitsu since 1986

HeadRusch is offline  
post #194 of 218 Old 06-06-2005, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
...and the players will likely start off costing around $500-$1000 at first and be buggy as hell...
There were several good DVD players released at the launch of DVD so there is a chance several Blu-ray players will work quite reliably.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
...and there will be only a handfull of movies available, many of which you will already own in your DVD collection, so you'll have to shell out another $20+ bucks to get the HD version.
Just as there are people who are happy with VHS there will be people who will be happy with DVD. As for me I do not intend to replace my entire collection of DVDs but there are many movies I do plan on buying in HD.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
...and at 1080p watching a 37" set is the same as watching 720p since HD differences dont really even become that apparrant until you are watching on a truly large screen like 65 or 92 inches...
That entirely depends on viewing distance. To get the full benefit of a 37" 1080p HDTV requires that you sit 5" away from it though it will be beneficial to some degree as long as you sit closer to it than 7.5", which is the minimum viewing distance recommended for a 37" 720p HDTV.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #195 of 218 Old 06-07-2005, 09:43 PM
 
iboon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: On the Map
Posts: 524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
By next year there will be several sources of 1080p video such as Blu-ray/HD-DVD, PS3, and HTPCs.
You hope.
iboon is offline  
post #196 of 218 Old 06-08-2005, 07:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
ps24eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
iboon,


ps3 and bluray ARE coming next year. There are already many Imax movies in native 1080P for the HTPC.
ps24eva is offline  
post #197 of 218 Old 06-08-2005, 07:40 PM
 
CrocHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That does'nt mean that every game will be 1080p though, it may just be a select few.

But we will see when the system get's released.
CrocHunter is offline  
post #198 of 218 Old 06-08-2005, 07:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HeadRusch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
There were several good DVD players released at the launch of DVD so there is a chance several Blu-ray players will work quite reliably.
I remember the ones that weren't so hot. I also don't think a budget $200 dollar player will appear for some time....but I'd happily be proven wrong.

Quote:
Just as there are people who are happy with VHS there will be people who will be happy with DVD. As for me I do not intend to replace my entire collection of DVDs but there are many movies I do plan on buying in HD.
Me 2, but frankly...I'm not in any kind of rush. In order to truly take advantage of an HD DVD or Blu-Ray element, I'd need a better display than I currently have (my 65" set produces a nice HD image, but I also know that its 7" guns can't really resolve the full detail in that image. So while HD looks "really nice" on my set, in general the jump from DVD to HD is only noticible when you point out specifics to people..."See how you can see detail in the texture of the fabric of that guys coat, where on the DVD its just kind of fuzzy?"...etc.

I will buy HD when the prices come down and the selection improves. I wont be the first person in line to buy a new HD player that I will buy 2 movies a year to use with it. My collection of films that I'd be willing to re-buy in HD would actually be quite small, unless those HD movies were in the $9.99 range.

Dune is on my list......maybe 2001....some key Sci Fi films..Forbidden Planet....Apocalypse Now.....but not too many more. The DVD releases truly do look "good enough"..even at 80, 90, 110 inches.

Quote:
That entirely depends on viewing distance. To get the full benefit of a 37" 1080p HDTV requires that you sit 5" away from it though it will be beneficial to some degree as long as you sit closer to it than 7.5", which is the minimum viewing distance recommended for a 37" 720p HDTV.
7.5 feet seems far away for a 37" set of that resolution. On my 65" set watching High Def I can sit as close as I want, but my seating is genreally static at about 10 feet....I think that is within the SMPTE or THX standards for proper seating distance.

But a 37" set isn't really going to give you the wow factor that you would get by seeing that same 1080p image at a much larger screen diameter.

Xbox Live / PS3 / Steam: HeadRusch1
Keeping the world safe from the evil antics of Bernie Tanaka and Mel Fujitsu since 1986

HeadRusch is offline  
post #199 of 218 Old 06-09-2005, 08:26 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
ps24eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrocHunter
That does'nt mean that every game will be 1080p though, it may just be a select few.

But we will see when the system get's released.


Actually every game is 1080P. I posted this about three pages ago.

Atleast thats what IGN.com said. They were pretty specific, so I believe them.


we'll see when it gets released...
ps24eva is offline  
post #200 of 218 Old 06-09-2005, 08:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HeadRusch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 41
IGN changes their story as information comes out..........they were saying every Nintendo Revolution would have free downloads a week ago, now they are saying it wont, you'll have to pay for them. IGN just reports what industry insiders tell them

Today they're saying the PS3 will have every game at 1080p...tomorrow they'll be saying that not every game has 1080p......The point is, making absolute statements like "Every Game Will Be in 1080p" is a bit premature considering the hardware isn't even set to debut until around this time next year, if not a little sooner.....and rumors have a tendency to change over time.

Xbox Live / PS3 / Steam: HeadRusch1
Keeping the world safe from the evil antics of Bernie Tanaka and Mel Fujitsu since 1986

HeadRusch is offline  
post #201 of 218 Old 06-09-2005, 08:59 PM
Member
 
zeekle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: nashville tn
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think the 1080 hype is a bit of smoke and mirrors atm. At current adoption rates its going to be a long time before most people pony up for a native 1080 display. Most people on these forums might have HD sets but the majority of people will be playing these new systems on SD TVs.
zeekle is offline  
post #202 of 218 Old 06-09-2005, 11:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
Dune is on my list......maybe 2001....some key Sci Fi films..Forbidden Planet....Apocalypse Now.....but not too many more. The DVD releases truly do look "good enough"..even at 80, 90, 110 inches.
DVD is good but I doubt it would look that great on a 110" display when sitting 12" away, which is what THX recommends for optimum viewing distance. Here is a viewing distance calculator that can tell you some various recommendations for seating distance. Note that there are two errors on it. One is for "Maximum Viewing Distance for HDTV" in which it should be 1080p and not 1080i. 1080i on average will have an effective resolution of 70% that of a progressive display. The other error is that the maximum viewing distances for HDTV for "Viewing Distances Based on Visual Acuity" are actually the recommended distances based on 20/20 vision.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
7.5 feet seems far away for a 37" set of that resolution. On my 65" set watching High Def I can sit as close as I want, but my seating is genreally static at about 10 feet....I think that is within the SMPTE or THX standards for proper seating distance.
I am guessing you are referring to the proper seating distance for a 1080i display in which case that is pretty close. As for the 37" 720p display I base the viewing distance for 20/20 vision and no visible pixel structure. Though 720p is much larger than 480i it isn't really that high if you compare is to current computer resolutions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
But a 37" set isn't really going to give you the wow factor that you would get by seeing that same 1080p image at a much larger screen diameter.
Resolution by itself though is rather impressive and computer monitors have shown that for many years. I do agree though that a larger screen size does help with the immersion factor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ps24eva
Actually every game is 1080P. I posted this about three pages ago.
I would guess that Sony is recommending that every game be made at 1080p. It will be very interesting to see what the initial PS3 games use as their resolution. That will tell a lot about whether or not 1080p will be common for PS3 games.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #203 of 218 Old 06-10-2005, 05:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
I would guess that Sony is recommending that every game be made at 1080p. It will be very interesting to see what the initial PS3 games use as their resolution. That will tell a lot about whether or not 1080p will be common for PS3 games.
I have a feeling it will be about as common as 720p and 1080i games were on the Xbox.

It looks like developers will have to decide between 720p with AA (2X or 4X) versus 1080p.

For games which are released on both X360 and PS3, will they release with different resolutions? Only if PS3 installed base outstrips the X360 (since X360 can't output 1080p, even if the ATI GPU can render it). So for the first year or two, maybe the whole next gen cycle, 720p seems more like a safe bet.
wco81 is offline  
post #204 of 218 Old 06-10-2005, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthJersey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 2,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
...and the players will likely start off costing around $500-$1000 at first and be buggy as hell...

...and there will be only a handfull of movies available, many of which you will already own in your DVD collection, so you'll have to shell out another $20+ bucks to get the HD version.

...and at 1080p watching a 37" set is the same as watching 720p since HD differences dont really even become that apparrant until you are watching on a truly large screen like 65 or 92 inches...
it's said that the minimum screen size to enjoy 1080p is 45" but typically you should have 56" or higher
NorthJersey is offline  
post #205 of 218 Old 06-10-2005, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81
It looks like developers will have to decide between 720p with AA (2X or 4X) versus 1080p.
I believe both the PS3 and X-box 360 will be capable of rendering the PC version of Doom 3 with full effects at 1080p with 4x AA. So I do not think developers are going to have to decide between AA and 1080p but instead may have to decide between 1080p and more advanced forms of bump mapping and per pixel shading.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81
For games which are released on both X360 and PS3, will they release with different resolutions? Only if PS3 installed base outstrips the X360 (since X360 can't output 1080p, even if the ATI GPU can render it). So for the first year or two, maybe the whole next gen cycle, 720p seems more like a safe bet.
Actually if the game is rendered internally in the X-box 360 at 1080p it would be fairly easy to make cross platform games. The games on the PS3 could be output at 1080p while the games on the X-box 360 would be output at 1080i. Also having the game at two different resolution for the two consoles would not really be that difficult. Consider the fact that with only two resolutions it would still be far easier than what every PC game developer has to do.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #206 of 218 Old 06-20-2005, 03:25 PM
Senior Member
 
VisionxOrb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, Ca
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
For the record I for one can not wait for 1080p to arrive, the fact that ps3 will support it will help push the TVs to have it, and then competition will drive down that price, since Ive had a 1080p console ( my computer ) hooked to my hitachi 50v500 ( 720p LCD RPTV ) I cant wait till there are affordable 1080p large tvs out. Anyone who cant see a point in the higher rez saying u need a supermega large tv to get the benift is in denial. How many people here use a computer (since this is an online forum Im going to guess every one )? Now who can honestly say that watching eye candy games ( farcry for example, which i play on my HDtv at 720p, ok im using 1216x684 to get rid of my overscan, which blows anything xbox or ps2 has out of the water ) does not look better at 1280x1024 ( near 1080p vertical resolution ) or above than at say 800x600 or even 1024x768 ( basicly 720p ). Im not even going to mention 640x480 ( SD or ED if 480p ) since thats a joke and looks like ass. and thats on much much smaller screens than any TV were talking about here. Basicly I had to write because I can not understand the animosity(sp?) twards progress, I mean, were all these people saying the same thing when HD tv was finally coming out and we were switching from SD?????

2000 watts of power and climbing
VisionxOrb is offline  
post #207 of 218 Old 06-20-2005, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HeadRusch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionxOrb
For the record I for one can not wait for 1080p to arrive, the fact that ps3 will support it will help push the TVs to have it, and then competition will drive down that price, since Ive had a 1080p console ( my computer ) hooked to my hitachi 50v500 ( 720p LCD RPTV ) I cant wait till there are affordable 1080p large tvs out. Anyone who cant see a point in the higher rez saying u need a supermega large tv to get the benift is in denial.
Well..one mans opinion......however uninformed it may be... :)

Quote:
How many people here use a computer (since this is an online forum Im going to guess every one )? Now who can honestly say that watching eye candy games ( farcry for example, which i play on my HDtv at 720p, ok im using 1216x684 to get rid of my overscan, which blows anything xbox or ps2 has out of the water ) does not look better at 1280x1024 ( near 1080p vertical resolution ) or above than at say 800x600 or even 1024x768 ( basicly 720p ).
I will go on the record that, to me, 1024x769 Far Cry looks about as good as 1280x1024...things are a little sharper. Thats it. There is no "oh my god its like night-and-day!" change, there is no "its like going from VHS to HD-DVD!"....its a slightly sharper picture. 800x600 is grainy.....1024x768 is really good...1280x1024 is when any semblence of graininess disappears, but its not as profound an effect unless you're literally right on top of the screen.

Quote:
Im not even going to mention 640x480 ( SD or ED if 480p ) since thats a joke and looks like ass. and thats on much much smaller screens than any TV were talking about here. Basicly I had to write because I can not understand the animosity(sp?) twards progress, I mean, were all these people saying the same thing when HD tv was finally coming out and we were switching from SD?????
What animosity are you talking about....nobody here is saying "Who needs 1080p"...we're all saying 1080i is fine, and most of us who aren't fanboys are waiting and seeing if the next gen game consoles can really do all their games at 1080i or 1080p.......

But i wont be in a rush to get a 1080p set.......resolution just isn't that important to me...and no I'm not in denial, I'm just not a big resolution fanboy that I have to chase or get all damp in the panties over a resolution increase. Certainly not for games.......for movies, maybe.....games? Eh....480p still looks beautiful to me. 720p/1080p will look better, but I'd rather they spent more time developing the games than throwing more eye candy at us.

There are racks full of bad games that look pretty...

Xbox Live / PS3 / Steam: HeadRusch1
Keeping the world safe from the evil antics of Bernie Tanaka and Mel Fujitsu since 1986

HeadRusch is offline  
post #208 of 218 Old 06-20-2005, 04:29 PM
 
CrocHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah i totally agree with you there head rusch,it's not that big of a difference, only slightly sharper.

1080i is more than plenty and will do fine, but going from 1080i to 1080p is like going from 480i to 480p, the differences are really minimal at best.

I really don't see the need right now to go out and purchase a 1080p set, when i like the one i have right now.

When they are cheaper and come down in price then i will get one later on, but for now 1080i should do just fine.
CrocHunter is offline  
post #209 of 218 Old 06-20-2005, 06:07 PM
Senior Member
 
VisionxOrb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, Ca
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrocHunter
but going from 1080i to 1080p is like going from 480i to 480p, the differences are really minimal at best.
its not them same and Ill tell you why, now everything in life comes down to priorites, and the reason this is a big priority to some is were the ones using our TVs as computer monitors, while your right on alot of things 1080 maybe fine, i watch DVDs all the time scaled to 720p on my tv and i live. But the thing is using a TV as a monitor basicly 1080i is completely usless for us except for video watching, everseen a desktop on interlaced signal??? LOOKS HORRIBLE, so basicly were stuck with 720p, so by tvs moving to 1080p, while you guys just seeing it as going from an I to a P, for us its going from 1280x720 to 1920x1080. HUGE difference.

Now im not going to run out and by the first large 1080p tv that hits the market
( allthough that 37" monitor would be pretty sweet to have on my video editing workstation ). but thats mainly because I cant afford it right now, if there was a viable TV say around 3500 dollers for 50" ( which in a year there probably will be ) and I have the money I forsure will upgrade my TV. Ill give my old one to my parents as there still using a 35" RCA consol tv made in 1995, gawd that picture is terrible.

2000 watts of power and climbing
VisionxOrb is offline  
post #210 of 218 Old 06-20-2005, 06:21 PM
Senior Member
 
VisionxOrb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, Ca
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch
Well..one mans opinion......however uninformed it may be... :)
So your saying that having more material avalible in 1080p wont make 1080p tvs look more appealing and help drive demand, at which point more 1080p TVs will be made at which point competition between companys will help bring down prices as has been happening with consumer electronics since there has been consumer electronics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch


What animosity are you talking about....nobody here is saying "Who needs 1080p"...we're all saying 1080i is fine, and most of us who aren't fanboys are waiting and seeing if the next gen game consoles can really do all their games at 1080i or 1080p.......

But i wont be in a rush to get a 1080p set.......resolution just isn't that important to me...and no I'm not in denial, I'm just not a big resolution fanboy that I have to chase or get all damp in the panties over a resolution increase. Certainly not for games.......for movies, maybe.....games? Eh....480p still looks beautiful to me. 720p/1080p will look better, but I'd rather they spent more time developing the games than throwing more eye candy at us.

There are racks full of bad games that look pretty...
I can understand and respect your opinion, heck I know alot of people that dont even care about HDTV in general there perfectly fine with 480i on there crt direct views, maybe animosity was the wrong term, but is seems like since 1080i is fine for you and you see no point in 1080p, that everone else here should share ur opinion. An im no fan boy, heck I dont even own an xbox or ps2 although all my friends do, Im a pc gamer, but for alot of us there are litgitimate reasons to move to 1080p.

2000 watts of power and climbing
VisionxOrb is offline  
Closed Thread PlayStation Area

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off