List of all 1080P display devices for PS3 - Page 3  

I'd like to second this. I don't know of a single one and I haven't yet seen it clearly spelled out.

In addition, and I've said it before, Sony is well known for hyperbole and over hyping. Does anyone know for a fact if they have claimed 1080p output or just that the console can "do 1080p" in which case they might have meant render it and then output in 1080i/720p. So many of the threads in this forum take a single really vague mention or sentence and extrapolate all kinds of things from it and I have not seen 1080p output convincingly nailed down at this point (granted I might have just missed it but I'd like to confirm it from a reputable source).

For what its worth, Westinghouse is like the APEX or ADVENT of the LCD world..........

If you look at the specs on that 37" Westnghouse that does 1080p for about $2200 hundred bucks, its got a 600:1 contrast ratio.

Thats abyssmal.

With TV's and booze, you generally get what you pay for. If the next brand over's 37" 1080p set costs $2000 more than the Westinghouse, there is probably a reason why, Westinghouse is cutting corners somewhere.

I bought a 27" Advent HD 4:3 TV for gaming the tail end of 2003....it was only $400 bucks shipped, and the next cheapest TV similar to it was made by Samsung and it was $700 at the time.

For gaming at 4:3 its perfectly adequate...nice flat screen....but for watching TV or movies? Its abyssmal. the left 3" of the screen is brighter than the rest of the screen..its subtle but its there....there are convergence issues and some focus issues at the corners.....its svm and othe rsettings are laughable, I couldn't even come CLOSE to getting it calibrated using AVIA.

And the worst part is that in its 16:9 mode (to display 1080i, which it does), you have to sit on top of the TV to make anything out :)

Oh well...live and learn...my next gaming TV will be 32" LCD widescreen with a CR of 1000:1 or more, with 720p resolution. 1080i would be nice, but I wont pay a premium for it.

Lets be honest here ...no one really liked the games ps2 had at launch. I bought that console because they said toy story graphics...then I thought whoaa! that means I could have final fantasy 7 games that had in-game graphics that looked like the cgi movies in that game. demos seem to show this....BAM! heres 300 bucks. never make that mistake again...you no show games...me no buy console. (ps3 is the exception to this rule...what Home Theater buff could pass up blu ray and such a cheap price?)

naw...dreamcast died cause it failed to reach enough customters to keep things rolling...no customters = developers leave= no revenue coming in..this compounded on the fact that they were already in financial trouble.

sega did everything right in regards to the dreamcast far as I see it...they launched it with incredible games (I swear they had like 8 triple A titles at launch, something i've yet to see since)...and they kept great games coming. Sony's lies said wait!! our console will make that one look like garbage..trust us...that kept people from buying it. Some people say sega did a bad job marketing...I say no amount of marketing could have killed the hype engine sony started...Thats my account of things.

We all know that games decide the fate of consoles..no need to preach it...but in an era when tons of games are cross platform..graphics become the definitive answer to which consoles people get in alot of situations. Exclusive great games ranks first...graphics second. power matters.

What was it cnofirmed on, ps24eva?

Actually I don't know of any HDTVs that can accept 1080p at 30 fps. Since 60 Hz is the refresh rate of the display if it can accept 1080p is usually only accepts it at 60 fps. There are only two displays that I know of for under $10K that can currently display and accept 1080p at 60 fps and that is the 37" Westinghouse for $2500 and the 45" Sharp for $9000. The 37" Benq might be able to but there has not yet been any confirmation on that.


Yes, but it will probably be far more expensive than the iToy. Even in volume I would guess that a 1080p camera will cost $300 if it comes out next year. Though some may think Sony is going overboard on being the most advanced I think Sony is simply planning for the console to last a long time. The PS1 lasted 5 years, the PS2 lasted 6 years, and I think Sony is planning on the PS3 lasting at least 7 years.


The specs on IGN say 1080p output though they don't say at what refresh rate. They do say that the GPU can handle up to 1080p at 2x so the PS3 certainly sounds like it can do 1080p at 60 fps. Also an unrelated but interesting thing to note is that Sony has both SD and CompactFlash inputs on the PS3.


They are not highly regarded but they are somewhat better than those brands.


I would consider that reasonable though it certainly doesn't set any records. It's pixel response time on the other hand is 12 ms which is good for an LCD.


They are certainly no brand name and that alone cuts cost. As for quality I agree that it won't be the best but for 1080p that is currently the best, and only, display in town under $3000 that is larger than 24".


I would recommend looking at the rear projection LCDs instead of the flat panel LCDs if you want a better CR. Sony's new models have a dynamic iris that will boost CR up to 5 times that of a flat panel LCD and by next year I think most manufacturers will be copying that. Of course you can't hang them on a wall and a CR of 1000:1 would be reasonable for gaming.


I see the point but though the PS2 didn't have Toy Story graphics it had plenty of great games. Also I always assume that demo videos may be spruced up and if I am unsure about buying a console I wait a few months after it comes out to see if it is worth getting.


Graphics matter but I don't see the X-box 360 having problems if the PS3 is more powerful. It won't change the fact that Halo 3 is coming out on the X-box 360 and that alone will help sell it. Personally I like Halo 3 but the most interesting game that has been announced for the X-box 360 is in my opinion Dead Rising. That trailer was simply amazing though I find it odd that they made him a photographer. Luckily after reading up on the game it sounds as though taking pictures is entirely optional to the story though you can get more money if you do decide to do that. What I am amazed at is that Capcom was the one who decided to do a game based on old fashioned American zombie movies. I can already here other game companies scrambling to copy the game :).

I also think for whatever reason those Squarebox fans will not have a choice in their games, too. BTW, if the 1080P display in question happens to accept a progressive signal at 60-Hz why would it be so difficult to map a slow refresh signal to the native one of the display?

Accept a signal and displaying as such is a game in itself.

I don't how realible is this for the AVS community, but it's exicting to hear that 1080p will be the standard, and that every game will support it, meaning that you buy the game, and BOOM, you got HD gaming, what a great time to live in :)

1) How are they generating the 1080P output signal? Is it native from the game, it is created through video processing on the console's output stage? And other than their own $25-30K Qualia display what displays does Sony think the mass market is going to buy next year?

2) What percentage of their first-year projected PS3 sales do they expect to be used on 1080P displays to market this feature in such a domineering fashion?

I think it would be wise for all games to be 1080P standard. They would be future proofing these games.

Think about it...1080P standard with the option to run the game in 720P (1280x720) or 480P (704x480). When the 1080p monitors finally come out at an affordable price, then you wont have to re-buy "enhanced" 1080p versions of your older games. Makes sense to me.

Plus people with computer LCDs will most likely beable to play at 1080p right away since there are alot more 1920x1200 PC LCDs than there are 1920x1080 HDTVs.


Now the question is, will the PS3 scale older PS2 and PSOne games to higher resolutions? I hope not...I would rather play these games in their native resolution, but in progressive mode. At least give us this option.

Contrast ratio numbers are mainly marketing numbers only. That 600:1 is alot closer to being right than any display advertising 2500:1 and numbers such as that.

Cool - thanks for providing all of that.

I think that is a very smart observation and I totally agree with you . . . Sony is planning for a long run with the PS3.

On the other hand

I'm convinced that MS is trying to shorten the cycle to 3 years. They want to be in the position of adapting to emerging technologies quicker and a shorter cycle is their answer.

Could you expect anything less from a company that primarly deals with computers? lol

I agree with you though.

Good thinking, but just maybe with the Cell technology if a game comes out that is developed to use more processing power you could network another Cell equipped device like, say your new "Cell Enhanced" refrigerator, heh heh. :p


peace

Mapping a lower frame rate to a display is easy and every time you play a movie trailer on your computer it is being mapped from 24 fps to whatever your display's refresh rate is.


It could either be native from the console or it could be scaled. Also I think Sony is looking 2 or 3 years from now when 1080p will become far more common. With a $2500 1080p display selling now I think that is a smart move.


Very little but for the same reason the X-box had 720p output so to does the PS3 have 1080p output. Just because it is not common today doesn't mean it won't be common soon. Also I remember that Microsoft highly advertised that the X-box had 720p/1080i output so it is not unexpected that Sony is advertising their 1080p output.


That seems likely though personally I think anything under 5 years is to short.

You mean like Epic did with that Unreal demo?

Mark Rein said they've had the dev kit for only 2 months and they're mostly using the RSX (GPU) and just the PPE in the Cell, none of the SPE units.

Some people are debating lower resolutions with a lot of processing versus more pixels. In fact, some people think 640x480 with 4X AA may be preferable to 1080p.

Then there is HDR, which probably will have a bearing on the CR discussion in this thread, if developers make use of it. Not to mention whatever effect it would have on performance.

1080p is surprising on many levels. 1080p displays are way expensive now and it's been rumored that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players wouldn't output 1080p.

There weren't that many games this generation which ran at 60fps. Sure the new consoles will be more powerful but I wonder if it wouldn't be asking too much to support HDTV resultions all the way up to 1080p, with AA, HDR and other effects.

Yes, UT2007 was real, in fact Mark Rein said that was basically the only 'live' thing shown.

As far as Killzone goes, even the dev admitted that the demo was made to be 'representive of the game they were trying to make. Check out this info from Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05...s_6126204.html

Well the PC world answered this question a long time ago, Higher Resolution is always a superior choice to lower resolution with Anti-Aliasing...but not at the cost of visual "Pop", if you want my 02 cents.

As a gamer, I would much rather see a game at 480 running with tons of visual effects going (full bump mapping, normal mapping, AA, Ansiotropic Filtering, all that jazz) at a consistently fast framerate than a game running at a higher resolution without the eyecandy. And I definately dont want a hi-rez game that chugs.

If its anything like the PC HDR, then it will be a crushing performance hit.
That is unless they've figured out a snazzier new way to implement it. Its a cool effect, and I think it will be the next "must have" feature in your game.
First it was "Lens Flare"...then it was Anti-Aliasing...then Ansiotropic Filtering..and Bump Mapping. Now? HDR lighting...

Actually you can buy a 1080p 37" LCD display for about $2 grand, if you can live with the 600:1 contrast ratio. Personally I think for that money you'd be better off getting a good 720p display with a better contrast ratio.

Still, it IS tempting to get a 1920x1080 display JUST to see how good HD can look. When looking at 720p displays you always go "Hmmm, I wonder what this would look like at 1080!"...and with a CRT based display you go "Gee, I wonder if the CRT can *REALLY* resolve the full 1080i image!"...you wonder if focus could be better and so on. (at least I do!)

Another interesting thing to consider is this:
Has anyone ever done a visual comparison between 1080i and 1080p to see if there is any real-world benefit to seeing the whole frame rendered at once? Considering the resolution of 1080i to begin with, motion artifacts would be hard to spot unless you're really sitting too close or really looking for them.
At 480i those flaws are easily spotted...but I've never seen films at 1080i on my set from the pay channels in HD, and I've never ever thought that the 1080i image would improve if it were in progressive scan....

I think progressive at low resolution (480i) is a big improvement, I'm guessing at a high resolution its probably almost unnecessary. But I understand that due to the nature of LCD's and DLP's that progressive it has to be.

Whoopie.

Now lets see them actually make a game thats worth playing in that resolution, and I'll be a happy camper. Considering the hubbub about all the pre-rendered demos at E3, I'm taking a decidedly cautious approach to this whole 1080p thing.

I dont care if its 1080p or 480p, so long as the games are actually fun to play.

Let's follow this for a minute ...

Let's say that the games for the PS3 are all rendered, by default in 1080P. This includes appropriate texturing, lighting, etc.

Now, since almost nil displays actually accept 1080P in the consumer electronics world (which is completely different from the computer electronics world) the market that will immediately benefit from 1080P is so small as to make one (me) wonder why bother at this pint in time vs. focusing on the display capabilities for the bulk of existing HD-compatible displays, and those expected during the majority of the console's prime lifetime.

I'm just saying that I am having a hard time seeing this be even of minute significance in display numbers (I'm guessing <<1% of HD-compatible displays). Being that the overwhelming bulk of current and a healthy majority of near term products delivered and bought by the masses will continue to be 720P and 1080i, what importance does Sony think the common buyer will place on 1080P native in something other than spec-hype?

Keep in mind I am given them a big kudos for this, but the numbers of individuals that can and will take advantage of this is so small as to place the entire aspect in a skewed light unless Sony can expect 1080P display sales to run in the millions during the life-cycle of the PS3.

And since the overwhelming percentage of consumer electronic displays currently owned, produced and ready for purchase, and meeting some sort of HD-criterial is something other than 1080P it becomes almost a moot point 'except' to that minute minority that can and will take benefite (a la Qualia owners, etc.).

And yes, I am considering the PS3 for purchase this Spring, and that personal focus of mine is for high-definition movie playback. Unfortunately, since I am already at 92" for movies and PC gameing (and 65" for console gaming) I doubt that I will find myself able to afford a 1080P display of size to even consider the specification of any valued interest as an output.

Of course, a Poll asking how many people can and will afford a 1080P display come Spring would be of great interest (I'm certainly curious), but that will undoubtedly get labelled as a flame-post, too, and closed accordingly--so you post that poll, please. :)

The real benefit for 1080P rendering (both for games and movies) should be looked upon as an advantage to begin with 1080P and go down to 720P or 1080i for the millions of displays already out there in consumer hands, and the still millions more that will be bought during the PS3's life-cycle.

I have an Infocus 4805 and can testify to this, once all the eyecandy is cranked up resolution takes a back seat. Would more resolution with the same eyecandy look better, probably(yes! :eek: ), buy right now at what I'm running it sure looks sweet. I would gladly choose more eyecandy than resolution.


peace

Personally I would prefer 1080p over 720p even if it does have less visual effects, but I do see the reason that some people would prefer a lower resolution with more visual effects.


1080p displays are getting cheaper and both Blu-ray and HD-DVD will be able to output 1080p.


One advantage of making the games at 1080p is that when you upgrade your display to 1080p there would be an instant visual improvement. I wonder though if the best way to do HD games will be to have two resolution modes. One at 720p with more effects and one at 1080p with less effects. That way people would be able to choose which resolution they prefer. Though this does makes computer games harder to do I believe that with two modes it could be done with only a small amount of added work.


1080p is far better than 1080i. The main problem with interlacing is that you have to reduce the vertical resolution to prevent interlace artifacts from being visible. As such the 1080i resolution only delivers a resolution of around 700 which means the vertical resolution is actually less than that of a 720p display.


Progressive is an improvement over interlacing and human vision is so good that even 1080p does not get near what the human eye can see.

1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

Considering 1920x1080p will stress a GPU more than 1600x1200, I don't consider 1080p a "mediocre" resolution.

Out of curiousity, what resolution is you PC running at, and what res do you game at?

So, is this ubiquitous accross all 1080i capable display devices (including high end setups) and simply the nature of the spec? The image is going to be automatically down rez'ed to 700 lines? This sounds a bit over-generalized but I'd be interested.

While that is absolutely true, range plays a big factor in whether or not the human eye can detect increased resolution i.e. 12 feet from a 42" display or 12 inches from the same display. There's also some diminishing returns at work here too. I can't remember who did it in the display devices forum but they calculated out the estimated distances of where most people would be able to perceive 1080p vs. 720p on a set of X inches. Might be worth a search.