-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
HD disillusionment
- Thread starter Solideliquid
- Start date
brain_stew
Member
dark10x said:
Plenty of 360 games render at SUB 720p resolution, yet they look far from horrile on my 1080p set. Quite the opposite, they look damn incredible.
Err, unless you are using a CRT, everything you view on your TV is being upscaled to the native pixel resolution of your panel. Everything. The TV is simply informing you that the source is 480i (DVDs are interlaced).Son of Godzilla said:
It doesn't really matter one way or another, though, as detail is never magically added. Even if DVD looks sharper on your display, that doesn't mean there is additional detail present.
Consider how an emulator functions. If you take a 320x240 game, it's up to you how it is viewed. You can scale it to any number of resolutions and run all sorts of filters through it to improve the image. That doesn't mean any data is being added, though. The original image is still only 320x240 and the details are limited by that fact.
And? 1024x600 progressive is still a lot higher than 720x480 interlaced. That's like comparing 640x480 to 1024x768 on a PC monitor.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
Yea I know that thinking about it, but for some reason I always thought TVs were smart enough to have more than one native resolution.Ranger X said:
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Son of Godzilla said:
You are aware that LCDs have native resolutions, right?
ShockingAlberto
Member
This is what happened with me. I expected this giant leap from component on an SDTV to component on an HDTV. And, aside from logos on text, it looks the same to me but in widescreen.Chrono said:
I was so looking forward to being a visualphile, too.
How would that even be physically possible with a fixed pixel display? You have a grid of pixels lined up on the display that physically exist. Sources are simply mapped to those pixels by the internal processing. Did you really think that pixels changed size and shape depending on the resolution being used?Son of Godzilla said:
A CRT can actually scan at different resolutions, but that is not the case with fixed pixel displays. Even so, a CRT could not add detail that doesn't exist in the first place. 640x480 on a CRT is a very pure method for viewing such an image, but it's still going to lack the detail you'd find in a 1600x1200 image, isn't it?
Son of Godzilla said:
No. This is technology related. The display panel of the TV is made of that number of pixels (its native resolution). A TV that changes its native resolution would be a TV that can physically expand or shrink. Such tech exist but not the for the home market though.
Well, beaten by DarkX and it was his discussion so i'll quit the explaining :lol
NullPointer
Member
knicks said:
More detail. LOTS more detail. We're talking individual pores, far smoother color depth, and sharp as a knife clarity. Its pretty spooky actually.
All a DVD upscaler will do is make your DVD *not suck* at HD resolution/screen size. Besides that it may appear to have more detail, but it really doesn't.
At least, thats how I understand it - but I honestly can't tell the difference between normal and upscaled DVD. I'm using the PS3, and while there might be a difference I'd have to see the two versions side to side I guess.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
Yes, yes; I already admitted how silly it is. Still though.
Solideliquid
Member
Just won 28 Weeks Later on BD for $12.50 on eBay!
Go 22" BenQ!
No seriously, I'm pretty disgusted with my 32" SlimFit, I'm probably going for that Samsung 42" 720P for $999 in June (or sooner depending on how my tax return looks+stimulus package? mmmm).
Go 22" BenQ!
No seriously, I'm pretty disgusted with my 32" SlimFit, I'm probably going for that Samsung 42" 720P for $999 in June (or sooner depending on how my tax return looks+stimulus package? mmmm).
There is a difference to be sure, but is it as big as some make it out to be? I don't know since I don't have an HDTV, but I do have a widescreen monitor and an HD-DVD in my PC. I see a difference.
Still, it's not the end of the world. I've been playing PC games all my life, so as they've grown, so have I, and I've been used to high resolutions for a long, long time. It doesn't really bother me gaming on an SDTV or watching a standard dvd.
Still, it's not the end of the world. I've been playing PC games all my life, so as they've grown, so have I, and I've been used to high resolutions for a long, long time. It doesn't really bother me gaming on an SDTV or watching a standard dvd.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The difference on a CRT like that is going to be very subtle. But if you watch HDTV on a large 1080p LCD for awhile it will look really blurry when you go back to SD.
LCD 640x480 =/= CRT SDTV 640x480
also:
(quoting myself)
Crappy NTSC color and 4:3 pan and scan in movies makes American videophiles switch (a bit) faster to HD. Understandable. Many Europeans own CRT 16:9 SDTV's. That's why it's stupid to say: "once you watch HD you can't go back to 4:3 SD". (Allard GDC 2005) I can easily go from my 1920x1200 LCD to my flatscreen CRT 36" 16:9 SDTV because the picture quality (contrast, color, black level) is still unmatched.
Those pics on the last page are bullshots. Standard definition isn't that blurry.
Ignore the moire effect, distorted colours and contrast etc., I still suck at taking pictures.
But this is pretty much what it looks like from my couch 3m (3 meters = 9.84251969 feet) away.
CRT 36" 16:9 SDTV
16:9:
"DVD"
"HD-DVD"
zoomed in:
"DVD"
"HD-DVD"
also:
(quoting myself)
Crappy NTSC color and 4:3 pan and scan in movies makes American videophiles switch (a bit) faster to HD. Understandable. Many Europeans own CRT 16:9 SDTV's. That's why it's stupid to say: "once you watch HD you can't go back to 4:3 SD". (Allard GDC 2005) I can easily go from my 1920x1200 LCD to my flatscreen CRT 36" 16:9 SDTV because the picture quality (contrast, color, black level) is still unmatched.
Those pics on the last page are bullshots. Standard definition isn't that blurry.
Ignore the moire effect, distorted colours and contrast etc., I still suck at taking pictures.
But this is pretty much what it looks like from my couch 3m (3 meters = 9.84251969 feet) away.
CRT 36" 16:9 SDTV
16:9:
"DVD"
"HD-DVD"
zoomed in:
"DVD"
"HD-DVD"
This is closer to reality.giga said:
My parents bought a SlimFit and overall, it looks pretty bad, mainly due to the geometry and convergence issues with the set. It can only resolve about 800 lines of vertical resolution, so you're missing some detail there. The color and contrast look better than most plasmas I've seen, but nothing looks sharp or focused. 480i SD content looks better than any LCD or Plasma I've ever seen, but then again it is a CRT.Ranger X said:
Solideliquid said:
You're not the only one so don't let the forum herd make you believe your're some sort of freak. There isn't that much of difference between dvd blu-ray movies 720P/1080i for me either. I believe though if I moved to 1080P and hdmi I would see a big enough difference to warrant the HD movie hype.
You were over expecting and not realistic about what HD changes with the amount of detail not the quality. Glad you found out that the HDTV satellite, cable, and movies have their own issues like down coverting and transfers of the movies not necessarily being hd. Owell one more person realizes the HD Generation is a marketing crock the better.
Eh, I've been using HD screens and content for about a year and a half now and I have to be honest, once you actually start watching the movie your eyes stop noticing the minutiae. Games I don't relax into it for obvious reasons, it's an activity not a passive activity like a film and that's why in things like Crysis the little discrepancies in the graphics really stand out. I mean don't get me wrong I'd rather have my films in high-def but I'm certainly not going to blow it's trumpet as loud as a lot of people.
I'm really inrtigued with the new 120hz technology though, all I know is it makes things look "like they're sticking out the TV" as someone (may not have been this forum) said. Anyone know anything about that? Perhaps that would retain eye focus. Or perhaps I have shit eyes in the first place.
I'm really inrtigued with the new 120hz technology though, all I know is it makes things look "like they're sticking out the TV" as someone (may not have been this forum) said. Anyone know anything about that? Perhaps that would retain eye focus. Or perhaps I have shit eyes in the first place.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
I'm still not really sold on HD. My 360 looks pretty damn good on component cables on my 37" (or whatever) SDTV.
Those still image comparisons are nice and all - but I mean, we live in the age where hundreds of thousands (probably even in to the millions) of people watch TV shows and movies over stuff like Youtube and DailyMotion - 320x240 video (roughly VHS quality). Places like DivX's Stage6 (their Youtube-esque service that supports any resolution you can throw at it) are actually floundering. It's great that they're so clear, but 1080p doesn't really matter to me.
I'm still busy building my DVD library up and the big boys are already calling for a new video format? One that I have to buy a new TV and a new video player and new versions of my movies just to view? No thanks.
I've seen real HDTVs (my cousin owns one and we often play his 360 on it) and I can't help but think it's pointless to everyone but videophiles. I can't say seeing HD really "ruins" my perspective on SD, either. It's quite easy to go from HD back to SD for me. It's not that I don't notice the difference, it's that I don't care about the difference. In motion, DVD still looks really good over component - more than enough to watch a movie on.
In a perfect world I'd have the ultimate high-def home theater setup - but the world is far from perfect and I can't justify the exorbitant amount of money it would take to enter the "HD Era" when the benefits are pretty negligible to me. The quality of my viewing experience is not going to be based soley on whether or not I can count the pores on Keanu Reeve's ass in The Matrix Reloaded. It's going to be based on the movie itself.
Those still image comparisons are nice and all - but I mean, we live in the age where hundreds of thousands (probably even in to the millions) of people watch TV shows and movies over stuff like Youtube and DailyMotion - 320x240 video (roughly VHS quality). Places like DivX's Stage6 (their Youtube-esque service that supports any resolution you can throw at it) are actually floundering. It's great that they're so clear, but 1080p doesn't really matter to me.
I'm still busy building my DVD library up and the big boys are already calling for a new video format? One that I have to buy a new TV and a new video player and new versions of my movies just to view? No thanks.
I've seen real HDTVs (my cousin owns one and we often play his 360 on it) and I can't help but think it's pointless to everyone but videophiles. I can't say seeing HD really "ruins" my perspective on SD, either. It's quite easy to go from HD back to SD for me. It's not that I don't notice the difference, it's that I don't care about the difference. In motion, DVD still looks really good over component - more than enough to watch a movie on.
In a perfect world I'd have the ultimate high-def home theater setup - but the world is far from perfect and I can't justify the exorbitant amount of money it would take to enter the "HD Era" when the benefits are pretty negligible to me. The quality of my viewing experience is not going to be based soley on whether or not I can count the pores on Keanu Reeve's ass in The Matrix Reloaded. It's going to be based on the movie itself.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
oo Kosma oo said:
Haha, for what? An 18" screen? If I'm going to watch something in HD, it should probably be as big, if not bigger than my current SDTV, don't you think? I'm saying how good I think a movie looks on a 37" SDTV, buying an 18" LCD is a waste of money.
Plus! Figure $200 for a monitor. Another $200-$500 for the player. Plus at least $70-$140 worth of movies to start me out with. We're approaching $1,000 to fully move in to HD with a screen that's smaller than the TV I'm currently content with.
It still won't look like the blurry shit from page 2 on most peoples CRT TV's. DVD's still look pretty impressive on a good SDTV, and yes, I've seen plenty of footage in 1080p (also, PC (true) HD-era since the late 90's).dark10x said:
Edit:
HD is great for movies and nature documentaries. It's too early for console games.
Most of the high profile games on so called HD consoles aren't even HD. No AA, no AF, plastic looking games, texture pop-in, tearing, no 60fps standard and the shitty UE3.
And thanks to bullshots and target render and CGI videos they all look worse in real life.
The simple fact is that if you can't appreciate the material benefit in gaming that HD provides (even if you can't afford that benefit yet), I really don't know if you should still be gaming imo--one thing is for sure, gaming is going to leave you in its dust.
Like it or not, that's just the reality.
Like it or not, that's just the reality.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
I don't understand why people care about other people's choices regarding HD. How about letting them in SD if they are happy with that?
Like it or not, everybody is having a different tolerance with image quality and for MANY MANY MANY MANY people SD stuff is enough. This is the reality you techies need to live with. People will get in HD over time but you need to let this "time" happen.
Seriously this makes up for so many useless discussions in threads like this one. Image quality (how it matters to people) is subjective and people with SDTV are still not behind or really disadvantaged gameplay wise (aka where it matters when you're gaming). It's totally viable to play your videogames in a SDTV especially if it takes component cables.
Like it or not, everybody is having a different tolerance with image quality and for MANY MANY MANY MANY people SD stuff is enough. This is the reality you techies need to live with. People will get in HD over time but you need to let this "time" happen.
Seriously this makes up for so many useless discussions in threads like this one. Image quality (how it matters to people) is subjective and people with SDTV are still not behind or really disadvantaged gameplay wise (aka where it matters when you're gaming). It's totally viable to play your videogames in a SDTV especially if it takes component cables.
AstroLad said:
Nintendo never said they were against HD hell they had various skus during Wii development they wanted to use but for economics they felt it wasn't worth which in some respect I agree as a business. People who stay sd unless it comes to down ideology on their hd choices or economics of some sets are dumb as rocks to me.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
Ranger X said:
You're the only person I've ever seen actually say this.
It's totally an e-penis thing. You are less of a man if you lack HD. I'm sick of it. I'm not a SD "apologist" and I'm not going to be "left in the dust" by HD gaming - Lost Planet and Dead Rising are crystal clear over component and SD and I have absolutely zero problems with the games people seem to have trouble with regarding small print.
Maybe HD will be the standard one day, but that day is very, very, very far off. Go take your cutting-edge-technology masturbation somewhere else, because I'm not likely to give a shit for at least another four years.
Dr von plutt
Banned
360 looks absolutely awesome on my rgb equipped ws crt.
NextGenitals
Banned
Solideliquid said:
Yes
LCGeek said:
Bingo. Anyone who thinks that Nintendo is somehow some noble defender of SD is going to be proven most decidedly wrong.
At the time the Wii released, HD penetration was not where it is today (and certainly where it's going to be in the coming year). After debacling the GC, Nintendo made the smart decision to target more than just gaming enthusiasts--they went after the SD-ownin' Wal-Mart/K-Mart non-gamer crowd and expanded the base for their game. It was too early for Nintendo to invest in HD at the time if they were going to capture that target crowd. And just like business savvy led them to make that decision, it is now and will in the future migrate them to HD.
Sega1991 said:
No it's not
SD sucks and holds back industries related to in a variety of ways. This is one of the few things I wish people were more progressive on. SDTV suck for many reasons when it comes to visuals and we've been hd possible basically since VESA was invented and svga resolutions or better have been around. Only reason there was no real push was manufacturing costs now that it's gone I'm glad companies are phasing it out like crazy even if we get half assed display options in exchange.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
LCGeek said:
Hang on, let me check something...
...
Nope, still not giving a shit.
Dr von plutt
Banned
At the end of the the day Hd is just resolution.
There are alot more to good graphics or in the case of tv-sets; image quality than resolution. Ill take proper black levels, no smearing etc over resolution anyday.
And if we are discussing wiis graphics.. id say resolution is one of its smallest problems.
There are alot more to good graphics or in the case of tv-sets; image quality than resolution. Ill take proper black levels, no smearing etc over resolution anyday.
And if we are discussing wiis graphics.. id say resolution is one of its smallest problems.
Dr von plutt said:
Wii's problem is nintendo isn't using DS or Wii to blackmail devs as whole in to doing a first time thing for any of their 3d architectures which is exploiting them. Can't wait for F5 to shut up every dev who said Wii wasn't capable they been talking big and last time they did both rebel strike and RS2 cleaned how in both areas without question.