Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Just took delivery of a Sony Qualia 006 RPTV three weeks ago...
70 inches diagonal, and its not even the biggest screen in my house
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
XBOX360 supports 1080p
- Thread starter FiRez
- Start date
Just took delivery of a Sony Qualia 006 RPTV three weeks ago...
70 inches diagonal, and its not even the biggest screen in my house
Kleegamefan said:Just took delivery of a Sony Qualia 006 RPTV three weeks ago...
70 inches diagonal, and its not even the biggest screen in my house
Sorry, that won't do it.
While that set can display 1080p, it only has 1080i (max) inputs, and I suspect it uses DRC to upscan 1080i into 1080p.
I disagree. 1080p, if the GPU can handle it well, is the logical render resolution for next gen consoles.
1080i is far and away the most commonly supported resolution for HDTVs in consumers' hands right now. Couple that with the craptacularity of the majority of PS2 games that rendered frame buffers interlaced, and 1080p seems like the natural choice.
It doesn't hurt that 1080i has higher apparent resolution than 720p.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
Kleegamefan said:Just took delivery of a Sony Qualia 006 RPTV three weeks ago...
70 inches diagonal, and its not even the biggest screen in my house
Holy shit. How much did that set you back?
Odnetnin said:
*ROFLMAO*
It's not because they doubt Drinky, but rather Nintendo.
The issue with 1080p is that not many TVs support it at this moment, AFAIK. And not many more lower end models will even support it this fall from what I hear (second hand from some HT salespeople).
Very forward thinking, yes...but supporting 1080i and 720p makes FAR more sense. Nothing wrong with having the PS3 support that resolution...but there's also nothing wrong with the 360 not supporting that resolution.
Now if the Xbox's standard was 720p and 720p ONLY...then we'd have an issue here. Most TVs being sold today DO support 1080i, and obviously that trend will continue during this Fall. Whether it's high or low end, the TVs currently being pumped out does 1080i.
Fight for Freeform said:
Correctamundo. 720p/1080i are all THE MAJORITY of people will ever need for the 360 or PS3. You'll start seeing 1080p sets trickling into the market probably within the next 4-6 months, but at this point, regular HDTV sets are just hitting their stride. Critical mass is a bit away for HDTV's, but we're getting close IMO. One good thing about 1080p is that it should spur price drops on 720p/1080i sets. Ain't competition (DLP/LCD) great!
Now next-nextgen, it's batter up for 1080p because the technology, and very importantly, the content will be more ubiquitous.
dark10x:
It's only not true for systems which are plagued with bandwidth expensive designs. A graphics processor with a good embedded RAM set-up like X360's or especially with a tile-based back end like PowerVR's doesn't have to be limited with costly data access over an external bus. X360 gets 4xAA at a low cost, and PowerVR's tech gets 4xAA at no practical cost even on a handheld system (with much better when at a set-top/desktop level).
DemonCleaner
Member
1080i is as good as useless for a display that is not able to display a physical 1080p picture,
so why don´t aim directly for 1080p instead of interlaced...thats total bullshit
so why don´t aim directly for 1080p instead of interlaced...thats total bullshit
DemonCleaner said:
Uh, what? Totally wrong. 1080p uses twice as much fill as 1080i. THAT'S why you don't aim for 1080p; you're needlessly using extra bandwidth, most likely. Furthermore, we don't even know that current (if you can call them that) 1080p big screens can actually display 1080 horizontal lines. It's not a matter of a progressive-versus-interlaced argument at that resolution (of course progressive always wins, given the same res), but a question of bandwidth and therefore GPU/RAM demands if I'm not mistaken.
DemonCleaner
Member
Inumaru said:
first of all 1080i or p is 1920x1080 lines, that means 1080 vertical and not horizontal lines.
to have an advantage in this resolutions over 720p, your display must support this as a physical resolution.
so when microsoft says, they are aiming for 1080i, but 1080p isn´t usefull, cause there are no
hd-devices on the market that support that resolution, that is totally bullshit.
displays in full hd-resolution have been shown even on last years ce-bit and ces. im pretty sure,
that there allready are such devices in japan and europe (guess in the us also), they will be standart on the mass market in a few years.
so if they really could do 1080p without any performance penalty (whats total nonsense for the reasons you've allready given), why shouldn´t they do it?
Inumaru said:
uh, what?
1080i uses the same internal resolution as 1080p unless you use field rendering. I thought that went the way of the dodo after seeing previous efforts on the PS2.
720p uses half the pixels as 1080p, so unless the consoles have way too much horsepower, I'd rather they aim for displays that at least some of us will have next gen.
Leave the 1080p for PS4, Sony.
While this is true, there are two things to consider. 1) Will this be true when PS3 launches in a year or more? How about when PS3 is in its 3rd year (when the real system sales start happening). 2) Doing super sampling down to 480i from 1080p will look better than 720p to 480i. It wouldnt be as noticeable as comparing the originals obviously, but it still would be a tad better.
True, but the vast majority of current models support 1080i natively, not 720p (this must be upconverted to 1080i). It could also be argued that 1080p is obviously the future, but that is really here not there. 1080i output from a 1080p source is noticeably higher res than 1080i extrapolated from 720p. Not to mention the possibility of some aliasing from the algorithm used to upconvert.
I agree, supporting 1080i and 720p as output resolutions does make sense. Im pretty sure both consoles will. However, Im talking about the internal rendering of the frame. 1080p (as opposed to 720p) internal will obviously yield more detail if displayed at 1080p/i, and will also yield higher apparent resolution when displayed at anything lower.
Again, Im talking about the internal frame rendering, not the output resolution. I agree, 1080p output resolution is certainly a nice to have, but is probably not going to be important until a few years into this war, if at all this (next) generation. 1080p internal rendering however, will make a difference in detail level long before 1080p native rate displays are popular, since it will yield more detail, real or apparent, at whatever resolution its displayed.
Yes, most HDTVs do upscale 720p to 1080i ... and that is exactly what most 360 games (maybe all?) will be doing if you set them to 1080i output mode.
Again ... I dont care about the ability to output 1080p. While this will end up being useful to me, it wont be to most people - at least not for a while.
Rendering it internally however, WILL be useful for anyone with a HDTV ... and to a lesser extent, any TV.
Inumaru said:
In broadcasting, 1080i uses approximately the same bandwidth as 720p. But this is not broadcasting, this is games.
As I said in my previous post, 1080i games are unlikely to use an internal 1080i buffer. You'd most likely create an internal 1080p image and then output at 1080i. So the only reason to use 1080i is for TVs that onlysupport that.
The only other way round it is to use field rendering like PS2 used in the early days. That has a whole bunch of problems around it, not least making AA very difficult to pull off.
So if you assume a 1080p internal buffer, the fillrate would be double that for a 720p game.
Which is why I'd prefer a 720p standard (I have a 720p screen
, and TVs that don't support 720p will just upscale to 1080iOni Jazar said:
From what ATI is saying, there is no difference hardware-wise. As long as the hardware supports it, and as long as the software supports it, there is nothing in the video subsystem at least that would preclude the 360 from supporting 1080p.
Then again, IMO it won't mean beans from bullshit difference whether it supports 1080p or not. The display and content markets are not there yet- and won't be by the time MS or Sony launches. So really, it's just a pissing match and nothing more because 1080p has no practical application AT THIS TIME or in the NEAR FUTURE.
I guess it's nice to support the option though.
Onix said:
That's great, and I agree. I do the same thing in sofware on my PC with FFDshow-resize. But I think the central point are marketing practicalities involved.
So what does Sony say to JoeBlow when trying to describe the merits of 1080p?
Sony: "Our console supports 1080p".
The average consumer: "But I can't buy a 1080p set unless I sell my Civic."
Sony: "Yes, but it looks much better."
Consumer: "OK, that sounds neat. Can I watch movies @ 1080p?"
Sony: "No, not yet."
Consumer: "What about TV?"
Sony: "No, not yet."
Consumer: "So, you're telling me that the only reason I have to sell my Civic is to play games?"
Sony: "Well interpolating a 1080p image to 720p makes it look better."
Consumer: "Uuuuummm, OK then."
The point is, it's a nice future-proof feature, but the benefits are practically nil to the average consumer unless you can sell it on the aforestated points. I don't think the majority of consumers will give two shits about 1080p because they don't know what it is.
It's just not in the mainstream consumer lexicon ATM and won't be for a number of years.
DemonCleaner
Member
Onix said:
eh, you´re sure it isn´t the other way around?
displays have a native resolution (i guess this expression describes the physical number of dots)
of 720p and are 1080i compatible?
the other way around it wouldn´t make sense, that native 1080i displays aren´t able to do 1080p.
the thing is, if you had an 1080i imagesource "downscaled" to 720p you would have a slightly
better picture.
turn the situation around and it make no sense at all, cause you just produce more data(1080i) but
with the same information as in the sourceimage (720p).
It most likely has embeded SRam but the type is besides the point really - I doubt you'll ever see a public figure on the size and configuration of caches on the chip.Already proven wrong. PS3's RSX has no eDRAM...period. Too bad...so sad.
10MB of actual cache would be obscenely over the top though.
MetalAlien
Banned
I looked around for front projectors with a native 1080p resolution... between 12 and 30 grand..... I think I'll stick with 1080i and 720p....
Hitler Stole My Potato
Banned
MetalAlien said:
As most sane people will. 1080p is just too cost prohibitive and it'll be another 6 years or so until the prices will come down to a more reasonable level (i.e. under 5 grand). If they're including features that nobody outiside the incredibly wealthy will be able to use they might as well include IMAX support while they're at it.
MetalAlien
Banned
Fafalada said:
I like how the PS3 has as much bandwidth to the 512MBs of system ram as the PS2s GS has to it's 4megs embedded ram.. It's going to be able to do some amazing stuff..
Hitler Stole My Potato said:
Yea, it's too much money... 720p projectors are within range though...
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Some will
eso76
Member
isn't 1080p limited to 30fps? i mean, because of tv's limitations, not graphic hardware.
And i'm not buying a hdtv anytime soon, so i'm more interested in finding out how the scaler chip in x360 works...
At least, downsampling a 720p, 4xAA image down to a normal tv resolution, results should be perfectly clean and absolutely jaggies free.
And i'm not buying a hdtv anytime soon, so i'm more interested in finding out how the scaler chip in x360 works...
At least, downsampling a 720p, 4xAA image down to a normal tv resolution, results should be perfectly clean and absolutely jaggies free.
Agent X
Member
Hitler Stole My Potato said:
This is exactly the reason why you would include such functionality into a system like PlayStation 3 now. You'll probably have millions of people buying the machine within the first few months, which would encourage the consumer electronics industry as a whole to produce more 1080p television sets. The competition will ultimately drive prices faster than if we had to wait for some obscure digital cable box or something similar (with a limited score) to implement 1080p.
By virtue of this, when the real "HD era" starts to pick up steam with the masses, the PlayStation 3 will be in a much better position to benefit, especially since it will have Blu-Ray compatibility (read: high-definition movies), whereas the competition will not.
While this might be valid from a marketing perspective, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Beyond that, who cares if consumers understand the difference? It only matters if they can see it.
If (and note, this is a big if) the majority of PS3 games are rendered in 1080p and that is the minority for the 360, people should be able to see the difference side-by-side. And I dont mean this on just a 1080p display, I mean it on a 1080i which will likely remain the most common HDTV resolution for the immediate future.
That is true of current fixed-pixel displays (LCD, DLP), but not of CRT which is still higher selling and has a huge majority of the current installed HDTV base.
This is correct, and when keeping in mind that 1080i is the most prevalent native display resolution, rendering stuff at 1080p will be better on any display as compared to 720p.
Again, we dont even know if 1080p will be standard on PS3 ... Im just saying IF.
Im not sure if that has ever been stated definitively, but it has the memory to handle it (which is why most people want it above HD-DVD - not that HD-DVD cant do it, but less memory means less extras, maybe less sound quality or choices, etc.)
Once 1080p moves to the forefront (which it will eventualy - TI has an 1080p DLP chip that uses wobulation, OLED has been demoed with it, LCOS is around, LCD are being demos, plasmas can do it, etc.), Im sure BluRay will definitely move in with movies.
Give it some time, it will come down - though you can get a used CRT cheaper. Besides, the new TI DLP chip thats 1080p doesnt cost all that much more than current ones (and will certainly come down once production ramps up) ... right now, where just paying out the ass cause its new.
And Ill repeat again, within the confines this discussion I dont really care if 1080p ever happens at the general consumer level. Rendering internally at 1080p will product higher actual resolution at 1080i - and higher apparent resolution at any resolution below that. In other words, anyone with an HDTV could see the difference.
Good point, but this still isnt necessary for everyone to see the difference between internal rendering of 1080p versus 720p. Any HDTV should show the difference.
Actually, maybe Sony is betting on 720p being the resolution of choice for this generation? That way, they wouldnt need much in the way of AA since the interpolation to 720p would give them the benefit of free AA (super sampling), plus still have higher apparent resolution versus games rendered at 720p?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Most fixed pixel large screen HDTVs are native 720p. Those, such as DLPs and LCDs, will downconvert a 1080i signal to 720p. CRT based sets are usually 1080i standard, and will upconvert 720p signals to 1080i. There are very very few sets out there that will natively show both 720p AND 1080i. And as for plasmas, most of those have some odd resolution such as 1024x1024 or somthing, not true 1080i but above 720p.
1080p is incredibly rare in an HDTV nowadays. At least in a decently priced consumer set. 720p support is very rare, especially in older HD sets, such as mine. I have had mine long before they started putting DVI into sets. I think MS is doing it best with aiming for 720p and 1080i this gen, where Sony is throwing out a larger figure like 1080p to impress people. Its a pissing contest really.
How many people are really going to take advantage of 1080p? Seriously. And how many people will take advantage of dual HDMI outputs? Not many. It seems like useless resources, and features that really arent needed. It is nice that Sony is forward thinking, but that is WAY too forward thinking.
And as others said, about 90% of gamers probably wont be playing these games higher than 480i anyways.
1080p is incredibly rare in an HDTV nowadays. At least in a decently priced consumer set. 720p support is very rare, especially in older HD sets, such as mine. I have had mine long before they started putting DVI into sets. I think MS is doing it best with aiming for 720p and 1080i this gen, where Sony is throwing out a larger figure like 1080p to impress people. Its a pissing contest really.
How many people are really going to take advantage of 1080p? Seriously. And how many people will take advantage of dual HDMI outputs? Not many. It seems like useless resources, and features that really arent needed. It is nice that Sony is forward thinking, but that is WAY too forward thinking.
And as others said, about 90% of gamers probably wont be playing these games higher than 480i anyways.
DemonCleaner
Member
PhoncipleBone said:
that means hdtv-crt´s have a full physical resolution of 1920x1080 dots but can´t display a
progressive picture!?
what´s the reason for that?
DemonCleaner said:
Actually, very few CRTs can resolve the full 1920x1080 image. As for why most of them don't support a native 720p image, a 720p image must draw 720 lines with each frame. A 1080i image only paints 540 lines. This allows a 1080i CRT to use a lower scanning rate, and hence less expensive electronics.
If PS3 doesn't do AA, but the games are rendered at 1080p, KLee's Qualia will be an interesting TV to experiment with.
He'll be able to switch between 1080i output - which one would assume would simply be a de-interlaced output of the frame buffer - and 720p output - which will have super sampling.
He'll be able to switch between 1080i output - which one would assume would simply be a de-interlaced output of the frame buffer - and 720p output - which will have super sampling.