Jump to content


Photo

1080p Meaningless this Generation?


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 Xbox-Scene

Xbox-Scene

    Memba Numero Uno

  • Admin
  • 5,201 posts
  • Location:Yurop
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:46 AM

1080p Meaningless this Generation?
Posted by XanTium | August 15 20:46 EST

 
From Ozymandias' Blog (alias Andre Vrignaud, Microsoft's Director of Technical Strategy for Xbox Live):


There's been a lot of interest in the PS3 due to its stated 1080p output for both games and movies (via Blu-ray). What's interesting is that a lot of folks don't realize how meaningless 1080p actually is in this generation.

Let's take games first. The PS3 has roughly the same pixel-pushing capabilities as the Xbox 360. Don't need to take my word for it, it'll be obvious soon enough over the next year. Even if this wasn't the case, consider we now live in a multi-platform development world, and that the current sweet spot developers are targeting is 720p due to the extremely similar system specifications. Simply put, a developer who is planning to release their game for both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 will aim for a common attainable ground. In fact, I'll stick my neck out and predict that that you won't see any 1080"x" games for the PS3 this year.

Let's move on to HD movies. Home Theater Magazine (recommended!) has a sister website, and I wanted to point you to a great blog post by Geoffrey Morrison discussing the topic.
Most modern HD displays (Plasmas, LCD, DLP, etc.) display content progressively, even if they first received an interlaced signal. Let me restate that: when you're watching a 1080"x" signal on a modern HD display, you're almost always watching a 1080p signal. The only difference is where the de-interlacing happens - but the displayed output is always 1080p. (Minor caveat is that there are rare TVs that don't de-interlace correctly, as described in the link above. But this is very rare today.)


Read More: Ozymandias' Blog




#2 BKbeaner

BKbeaner

    X-S Member

  • XS-BANNED
  • Pip
  • 73 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:01 AM

Does the 360 not do 1080p? i dont even think ive seen 1080p, well maybe at bestbuy

#3 cliffy88

cliffy88

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:07 AM

I have a westinghouse that supports 1080p and I can't wait to try it out...even if there is hardly a difference. I'm just a curious guy! rolleyes.gif Hopefully it wont be meaningless, but after all the arguing it would be funny if there wasn't a difference.

Edited by cliffy88, 16 August 2006 - 01:08 AM.


#4 KILLplaystation

KILLplaystation

    X-S Member

  • XS-BANNED
  • Pip
  • 116 posts
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:08 AM

i wont be able to afford a 1080p this generation tongue.gif , so its all good

#5 Pseudo99

Pseudo99

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 76 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:12 AM

I can't even fathom where the debate is.....

HDTV standardized resolutions are 480p, 720p, and 1080i. 1080p has only recently been added to high-end televisions, and is not a HDTV broadcast resolution. A clean HD signal from cable/satellite is an obscure enough market to cater to, let alone the insanely small percentage of people who can actually use a 1080p signal.

Perhaps 4-5 years down the line, HDTV will be in full swing, not just with the people who like high-end electronics, but for the common consumer. From there, if 1080p is a more standardized resolution, it's going to be another 4-5 years before any significant percentage of people have a 1080p capable set. I'm glad Sony thinks they have a 10 year system in the works here, but the reality is that 5 years from now, when 1080p might actually MATTER, there's going to be a next generation of systems ready to debut.

I own 3 HDTV sets. None of them support 1080p. I paid under $2000 for only one of them. I think I'm in a minority here, and I seriously doubt that a significant percentage of sets in the next few years are going to support 1080p, and I believe that there's an EVEN LESS percentage of people like me who are going to want to get rid of their multiple thousand dollar investments on a single resolution upgrade.

#6 eDeus

eDeus

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 77 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.1
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:44 AM

Original Xbox tried to do more than necessary, practical, possible with 720p/1080i. Similarly with the rest of the hardware it was cutting edge for console hardware.

Enter 360: knows exactly where the sweet spot is and how to utilise the console to its full potential.

Ps3 is trying to do the "uber console" thing, which is fantastic because we all love fast hardware, but like the Original Xbox, its coming to the table too late. Ps2 succeeded on many fronts (specced perfectly for its time) and 360 is capitalising on this experience/knowledge.

Either way, sweet generation of games to come (we can only hope).

Edited by eDeus, 16 August 2006 - 01:45 AM.


#7 Flagg3

Flagg3

    X-S Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 598 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:09 AM

QUOTE(Pseudo99 @ Aug 15 2006, 08:19 PM) View Post

I can't even fathom where the debate is.....

I own 3 HDTV sets. None of them support 1080p. I paid under $2000 for only one of them. I think I'm in a minority here, and I seriously doubt that a significant percentage of sets in the next few years are going to support 1080p, and I believe that there's an EVEN LESS percentage of people like me who are going to want to get rid of their multiple thousand dollar investments on a single resolution upgrade.


The debate is not about today, it's about future proofing. It's the single reason why the Dreamcast failed. It was a great system for it's time, but it simply didn't have the features to make it last for 5-6 years.

Yes, a very small percentage of people have 1080p capable TVs right now, but that's not really the point.
When the PS2 launched, a standalone DVD player sold for $400 - $1,000, and very few people owned them at that time.

Fast forward to today, as we near the end of the PS2s life cycle (Although it does have a couple of years left in it. Remember, the PS2 still outsells the Xbox 360, and new games will be released for another couple of years after the PS3 launches.) Today, DVD players are ubiquitous, and the market for HDTVs is finally starting to take hold.

Despite the fact that very few people own 1080p HDTVs, youi have to take into account that the vast majority of people have yet to upgrade to HD at all. In the next 5 years, as the vast majority of HDTVs are sold, 1080p will no longer be the rarity it is now. Is the difference between 1080i and 1080p that big? I suppose it depends. Almost anyone can instantly tell the difference between 480i and 480p, even if you upscale the 480i to 480p, but the difference between 720p and 1080p isn't nearly as noticeable unless you are dealing with a very large screen.

I genuinely feel that the differences between the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are roughly equivalent to the differences between the Dreamcast and the PS2. When the PS2 first launched, games usually looked as good or even better on the Dreamcast, and the Dreamcast was very competitive for the first year or so. But the simple fact was that the Dreamcast wasn't powerful enough to compete for the 5-6 years that it needed to.

With Blu-Ray, gigabit ethernet, 1080p, I feel the same is true of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, but it may not necessarily be as important in this generation as it has been in the previous ones. In the past, Console manufacturers were forced to extend the lifespan of consoles to 6-7 years because the hardware is subsidized in the first couple of years, and it is very hard to achieve profitability without such a long lifespan.

MS has already shown that they are willing to lose money in order to win the console war. If MS is willing to cut the life cycle of the console to 3-4 years, it would put tremendous pressure on Sony, and would largely remove the advantage that Sony has with the PS3, because by the time the advantages of the PS3 become relevant, MS could already be releasing a more powerful console.

Flagg


#8 jhoff80

jhoff80

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:12 AM

QUOTE(cliffy88 @ Aug 15 2006, 08:14 PM) View Post

I have a westinghouse that supports 1080p and I can't wait to try it out...even if there is hardly a difference. I'm just a curious guy! rolleyes.gif Hopefully it wont be meaningless, but after all the arguing it would be funny if there wasn't a difference.


If you have the same Westinghouse I do, the LVM-37W3, the deinterlacer has been known to be horrible with 1080i30 sources, although film (1080i24) sources are fine.

Oh, and personally, 1080p was much more important to me for use as a computer monitor, 720p isn't really enough resolution for a decent somputer monitor these days.

Edited by jhoff80, 16 August 2006 - 02:13 AM.


#9 Mistar Muffin

Mistar Muffin

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:26 AM

Am I the only one who raised an eyebrow at the following line?

"Most modern HD displays (Plasmas, LCD, DLP, etc.) display content progressively, even if they first received an interlaced signal. Let me restate that: when you're watching a 1080"x" signal on a modern HD display, you're almost always watching a 1080p signal."

AFAIK, this is pretty far off base. 99% of HDTV's out there are (natively) 720p or 1080i. This means they upconvert or downconvert signals to their native resolution. So yeah, if you have a HDTV that is 720p native, everything you watch will be converted to progressive scan. But the whole thing "when you're watching a 1080"x" signal on a modern HD display, you're almost always watching a 1080p signal" isn't true unless you have a 1080p HDTV, which are somewhat rare and still expensive. 1080p HDTV's just started hitting stores last year, with cheaper and better models following this year (already available). But if you have a HDTV that is 1080i native, then you are watching an interlaced picture AFAIK. 1080i televisions are not as prevalent as 720p ones, but that doesn't make this guys claim any more accurate if I am understanding him correctly. I just made my first HDTV perchase back in June. I got a ~50" Samsung DLP that supports 1080p on its VGA and (2) HDMI ports. I specifically waited to buy one until it had 1080p support. Yes, for the PS3/Bluray, but I also see it as slightly future-proofing my purchase. At the minimum it should extend the life of the TV before I need to upgrade. I bought the HL-S5087W from Circuit City and I couldn't be happier. The only complaint I have is that the internal speakers buzz and vibrate at any reasonable volume, not that I really use them anyways (amp).

Anyways, I never really got the feeling that 1080p was being touted as one of the PS3's top features. Sure its nice, but any knowledged person knows that very few will actually benefit from it (those with 1080p monitors). Bluray in general is being advertised as its shiniest feature along with next-gen graphics. The great thing about Bluray, and the same thing goes for HD DVD, is that both look far superior to DVD at 720p, 1080i, and 1080p, whichever the consumer's HDTV supports. However if you have a 1080p capable monitor, you'll get a significantly better picture over 720p and even 1080i. What the author of that article seems to be ignorant of, among many things, is that due to interlacing, 1080i signals look noticably inferior to the same content encoded at 1080p. Deinterlacing adds artifacts to the picture and is less detailed even to the untrained eye.

Take everything I said with a grain of salt. I could just be terribly confused! cool.gif

#10 thejt

thejt

    X-S Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.2

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:32 AM

In my opinion and from past experience there is alot more to do about the game developers usage of textures and lighting and at which resolution and framerate the games are rendered at.

When the Xbox 1 dropped the games looked horrible IMHO. As the developers became more familiar with the platform and architecture a dramatic increase in the display quality was seen. By the end of Xbox 1's run the games at 480p looked far better than a 1080i title release earlier in the lifecycle.

I guess my point is; until the developers are pumping out games that are photorealistic at a acceptable framerate AND a resolution higher than 1280x720 its not going to matter one bit.

Im sure the PS3 fanboys will have all kinds of reasons why that is not true but they live in a world where PS2 games look better than Xbox games which is some other planet. Being that the buzz is that the PS3 is more difficult to develop for; it does not look good for sony and their hardcore fans who are expecting them to blow the Xbox 360 away. GL

#11 Altima NEO

Altima NEO

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,404 posts
  • Interests:Gaming, XBox, 360, PSP, Dreamcast, 3D Graphics & Animation
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:33 AM

QUOTE(Mistar Muffin @ Aug 15 2006, 06:33 PM) View Post

Am I the only one who raised an eyebrow at the following line?

"Most modern HD displays (Plasmas, LCD, DLP, etc.) display content progressively, even if they first received an interlaced signal. Let me restate that: when you're watching a 1080"x" signal on a modern HD display, you're almost always watching a 1080p signal."

AFAIK, this is pretty far off base. 99% of HDTV's out there are (natively) 720p or 1080i. This means they upconvert or downconvert signals to their native resolution. So yeah, if you have a HDTV that is 720p native, everything you watch will be converted to progressive scan. But the whole thing "when you're watching a 1080"x" signal on a modern HD display, you're almost always watching a 1080p signal" isn't true unless you have a 1080p HDTV, which are somewhat rare and still expensive. 1080p HDTV's just started hitting stores last year, with cheaper and better models following this year (already available). But if you have a HDTV that is 1080i native, then you are watching an interlaced picture AFAIK. 1080i televisions are not as prevalent as 720p ones, but that doesn't make this guys claim any more accurate if I am understanding him correctly. I just made my first HDTV perchase back in June. I got a ~50" Samsung DLP that supports 1080p on its VGA and (2) HDMI ports. I specifically waited to buy one until it had 1080p support. Yes, for the PS3/Bluray, but I also see it as slightly future-proofing my purchase. At the minimum it should extend the life of the TV before I need to upgrade. I bought the HL-S5087W from Circuit City and I couldn't be happier. The only complaint I have is that the internal speakers buzz and vibrate at any reasonable volume, not that I really use them anyways (amp).

Anyways, I never really got the feeling that 1080p was being touted as one of the PS3's top features. Sure its nice, but any knowledged person knows that very few will actually benefit from it (those with 1080p monitors). Bluray in general is being advertised as its shiniest feature along with next-gen graphics. The great thing about Bluray, and the same thing goes for HD DVD, is that both look far superior to DVD at 720p, 1080i, and 1080p, whichever the consumer's HDTV supports. However if you have a 1080p capable monitor, you'll get a significantly better picture over 720p and even 1080i. What the author of that article seems to be ignorant of, among many things, is that due to interlacing, 1080i signals look noticably inferior to the same content encoded at 1080p. Deinterlacing adds artifacts to the picture and is less detailed even to the untrained eye.

Take everything I said with a grain of salt. I could just be terribly confused! cool.gif


Actually, most tvs that go up to 1080i usually have a native resolution of 1365 x 768. This allows it to do 720p without any major problems and 1080i without sacrificing too much of the image.


#12 KUNFUCHOPSTICKS

KUNFUCHOPSTICKS

    X-S X-perience

  • XS-BANNED
  • PipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Fishing
  • Xbox Version:none
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:41 AM

as far as i can see 1080x is worthless unless its in progressive model, even though your eyes cant acutally tell there are only 540 line in 1080i at anygiven time, its still the fact. i really dont mid 720p for now. besides right now if you go out and buy a BD player and a 1080p for 3 grand total the quality wont be so different from 720p i herad. its still to early.

and as for this 'next gen' of console wars, its ugly because fucken sony is draging in format wars with it. damn sony for that. i hope they fail again. only time will tell.

peace

#13 Vipernig

Vipernig

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 147 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:43 AM

I think in the above reply where the Xbox360 = Dreamcast and PS3 = PS2 is plain wrong. I would say the difference between the 2 system is like the difference between the PS2 and Xbox where the Xbox360 is analogous to the PS2 and the PS3 is analogous to the Xbox. One has more powerfull hardware on paper but the other has a bigger installed base and newer games and will be a software generation more advanced than the other similar to the way the PS2 had FFX, MGS2, GTA3 and the Xbox Halo. And Still the graphical gap between the 360 and the PS3 WILL be less than the differeance between the Ps2 and Xbox.

I still dont agree with the orignal topic that there is no difference between and no point of having 1080p. This is like saying that there is no point in having 720p and 1080i for the Xbox. Sure not many games used them but when they did they looked awsome. 720p Soul Calibur 2 anyone? And the difference is very simple. Play Doom3 or Farcry or Prey or anygame on a PC at 1920x1080 and 1280x720 and you will see the difference. Sure it is not earth shattering but if you had the option with no performance hit to choose either on a PC which one would you choose. I think its a no brainer. And the worst part of it all is that I am sure the 360 can has all the horepower needed to support 1080p but MS did not choose the right video decoder. Ahh well it aint the end of the world and I think half of what is said is bull to downplay 1080p and that the only truth there is that yes Devs will be working on the least common denominator which is 720p which is unfortunate.

#14 Heet

Heet

    X-S Knowledgebase

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,965 posts
  • Location:Gainesville, FL
  • Interests:Pina coladas and getting caught in the rain. Disk space.
  • Xbox Version:v1.3
  • 360 version:v2 (zephyr)

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:52 AM

Oh ya, I really wanna play games (2 or 3) at a maximum possible 30Fps on a format that 1% of games for the next 5 years will use.







#15 cliffy88

cliffy88

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:54 AM

QUOTE(jhoff80 @ Aug 16 2006, 02:19 AM) View Post

If you have the same Westinghouse I do, the LVM-37W3, the deinterlacer has been known to be horrible with 1080i30 sources, although film (1080i24) sources are fine.

Oh, and personally, 1080p was much more important to me for use as a computer monitor, 720p isn't really enough resolution for a decent somputer monitor these days.



Yep it's my computer monitor as well. I play games on the sony tv that sits beside it. However I plan on transfering colleges in a year or two so I'll no long have the 55" sony tv. By then I'll use this monitor as a tv/comptuer screen/xbox 360 tv. Maybe by then the 1080p feature will be useful.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users