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): [QUOTE] 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.) [/QUOTE] Read More: Ozymandias' Blog

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

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! Hopefully it wont be meaningless, but after all the arguing it would be funny if there wasn't a difference.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

developers can use that extra power to use better textures

heh it's good to see another 1080p westinghouse owner in the forums.
I just got mine last week.

jhoff80 -

I have the LVM-37w3 also, and the de-interlacer could be better, but it's not that bad. I too use it mostly as a computer monitor.

I would take 1080p over 1080i any day of the week.

The fact that 1080p is capped at 30fps makes the resolution not well suited to gaming. I guess since the PS3 will support the latest version of HDMI that this problem can be worked around, however since the lower end console will not have HDMI and most televisions will not support the latest version of HDMI it not really worth while.

720p60 is a great resolution, a good balance between the super high resolution of 1080p and the fast draw speeds of 480p.

In addition a 720p frame that is 4xAA has a higher perceived resolution over a non-AA 1080p frame.

Movies only run at 30 frames per second. That means 1080i = 1080p. De-interlace any interlaced movie stream from a progressive source, and you'll get 1080p with no loss of quality.

The blog is 99% correct. 1080p on the PS3 is mostly hype. You don't need 1080p output for movies, and the PS3 doesn't have the processing power to render games at that resolution. Also you'd need a 1080p display with the new HDMI 1.3 connector, as the current HDMI standard doesn't support the necessary bandwidth.
However there is a slight theoretical chance that the PS3 will offer high quality 1080p upscaling for 60fps games. I wouldn't hold my breath though, as high quality upscaling is expensive. And Sony will cut costs wherever they can.

Anyway the quality difference between 1080i and 1080p is fairly insignificant. Yes, there's a huge difference between 480i and 480p, but at 1920x1080 the interlacing is nearly impossible to spot. On my 360/Phillips 32" HD CRT I've only noticed line shimmer on *one* game so far (the end credits on Ridge Racer 6).

BTW the only true 1080i displays available are CRT's. That's the only technology where interlacing makes sense. The 1080i option on the 360 should only be used with CRT's. *All* other displays should use 720p, even 1080p displays.

Thanks dawg. As the guy above just said, with 1080i and 1080p the difference is minimal. I remember back before the 360 launched and how everyone said that 1080i was going to look horrible. LOL. Remember also that of all these new snazzy 1080p sets, only 3 of them accept the 1080p signal. So what does the others do you ask? With a 720p source or any other besides 1080i, a simple upscale is done. With 1080i the tv holds the first set of fields of the interlaced picture and waits for the second field before rendering the whole picture together progressively. To conpensate for lag, it line doubles the fields so in effect, you basically are the same with 1080i. Mind you that if your manufacturer does a firmware upgrade that gives the tv the ability to actually accept the 1080p signal, then you're in business. Second, with 1080p, like the above poster said, its all about pixels. Gran Turismo HD looked sharp at E3 with 1080p. But we all know this was just GT4, not many extra polys. With developers, its all about pixels and performance. Developers trying for that 1080p with non simple games like sony's xbox live arcade equivalent will have a hard time pulling it off with alot of pixels and anti aliasing and dropped frame issues. The present gen is 720p and hopefully 1080i. I think everyone is misinformed, thinking they are going to have 1080p out of the ass this holiday season, but games will be ran at 720p as it should be until the devs can effectively max out 720p and 1080i. I have two hd's and willl get a 1080p tv that accepts the signal within a couple months and plan to buy a ps3, although i feel bad about spending 600 or 700 bones with tax. The devs need to focus on 720p and 1080i and put out gears of war type graphics with 720p and 1080i before putting out some bs GT4 game with fubared graphics at 1080p. Movies at this point don't matter to me. If I had to pick one though it would be hddvd fully based on sony's failures with minidisk, and umd, and lets not even speak on beta.

ROFFLE!
whoever says that is full of crap.

so 1080i, is really a 1080p signal....in DISGUISE.


theres a difference between the 360 outputting a 1080i and the ps3 a 1080p. i think you'd have trouble properly de-interlacing a 360 1080i output (which is really a scaled 720 internally, i guess). and wouldnt reach anywhere near a 1080p actual pixel count. where as if kojima is really running mgs4 at 1080p, and i kinda believe him. then thats VERY different.

also, in the last generation, people didnt complain soul calibur 2, or burnout had 720p output, so i dont know why 1080p now is gettin bashed.

prediction - we'll have a post about how close you have to sit to a 1080p set to see all the pixels because of the limit of the human eyes angular resolution! and thus 720p is superior!

I had to restrain myself. Saying 1080p is the same as 1080i is like saying 720p is the same as 480p.

I tried to ignore this thread.

The difference between 1080i/p is nominal but still the progressive mode is a lot better than interlaced. I don't care too much at this moment b/c I plan on buying Samsungs new LN-S3241D which is a 32" and supports 1080p through one of it's HDMI ports. It's also just about as affordable as it's previous 32" models. It doesnt have built-in ATSC, but one can always remedy that w/ cable.

Saying the diff between 1080p/i is nominal means you don't have a clue. If you have 720p go with it, it's better than 1080i.

yes the holocaust never happend and islam = peace

WHATEVER M$ ARSEKISSERS

I said it was nominal because the higher it gets, the less noticieable it gets, ever heard of diminishing returns? Many people on this thread are saying the same thing. Also, that's not entirely true. 720p is better for slower-moving frames and 1080i is more suited for faster-paced display. A good example of this is 480i vs 480p. If you get a game, and you move your camera slowly, on a 480i picture, you will clearly see the interlace mode in effect. the lines on the edges will seperate from each other. But on a 480p picture, you don't see that, the character or object does not seperate and goes along with the camera. This applies to 1080i as well. On a fast-paced scene, you can't tell the difference because it's moving so fast you can't see the lines seperate from each other.

If you're given the option, it's better to use both of these resolutions to the best situations each offers. When 1080p becomes a full reality, both of these modes will phase out.
---

progressive is better for fast moving images, and interlace is better for still images.

And 1080p will always be better then 1080i. But i'd take 720p60 over 1080p30 anyday.

Well, for one, i could care less. Why? Because i dont have a 1080p tv. My tv goes up to 1080i. And after reading all this... im wondering if i should have my 360 display in 720p. Is it really that much better?

The original Xbox is the perfect example of what the PS3 will be like in regards to 1080p. The very few games that supported the higher resolutions suffered as a result in all the areas that are important, framerate, polygon count and textures.

As smooth as Soul Calibre II is at 720p, it still can't run at a full frame size (its pillarboxed). The developers had to compromise and every PS3 game that supports 1080p will also be a compromise in one way or another.

http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/05/08/ps3-games-not-1080p/

Sony has been touting their ability to output 1080p via dual HDMI ports while some have claimed most games won't be able to use that resolution.


http://www.megagames.com/news/html/console...srevealed.shtml

Whatever changes are made to the hardware however, we are told that Sony will not be able to meet its initial target of 1080p Full HD that it had originally set and will instead deliver 720p and will upscale it or allow the new TVs to do so. This, apparently, will save CPU cycles and will save gamers from the dreaded loss of frame rate.

1080p is only meaningful on CRTs for sharper and cleaner lines.

Definately on LCDs, 1920x1080 is 1920x1080, which means however way you slice it, there is NO difference between 1080i and 1080p on most LCDs. This whole thing is just marketing BS, unless a CRT tube is involved which is becoming rare these days.

If you have your x360 hooked up via VGA to a LCD and you have the dash configured for 1080i, you're playing games with the equalivancy of 1080p. With the dash update, you're watching DVDs upscaled to the equalivancy of 1080p.

Equalivancy meaning absolutely no noticable difference.

Using a HD CRT however will show some (albiet, very minor) differences.

- Not a theory, but a fact.

What I'd like to see however is a digital dongle for the x360, ie. DVI or HDMI

Actually the difference between 1080i60 and 1080p30 is nominal. Both have the same frame rate and frame size. What the original article is stating is that modern 1080p displays a 1080i frame all at once (deinterlaced). This means that if you output 2 frame locked 1080i fields there is absolutely no difference on the display device between the 1080p30 frame and the 1080i60 frame.

By all means, 480p is not a HDTV standard, or even a HDTV signal at all. If you read up on the definition of HDTV you'll find that the the two standards are 720i/p and 1080i/p. The two broadcast standards used today are 720p and 1080i.

1080p hasn't only recently been added to high-end monitors - 1080p has recently been added to monitors for the consumer market.

1080P will prove meaningful (likely) for the following generation. In 4-5 years when the new xbox arrives and TVs with 1080P more prevalent and cheaper than today, we will see greater meaning for this resolution. Just as well, since I've had 1080i for the past few years, I don't see any reason to move up until the next gen.

On a CRT (which has scan-lines) the 1080i image is displayed by alternating odd/even fields of 540 lines (one field every 1/60 sec.). This results in some flicker. If you feed that same 1080i signal into a Plasma or LCD that has 1080 lines of resolution, then it will display the entire 1080 lines at once. Would LCD draw every odd/even row of pixels separately? No, it is first sent to a frame buffer (after doing 3:2 pulldown etc.) and then sent to the panel as a progressive frame.

Now what I said above is sort of meaningless right now because the majority of LCD/Plasma are at most 720p, so this 1080 signal is downconverted in the TV to 720p. When the manufacturers of LCD panels created ones with 1080 resolution they probably thought it silly to call them interlaced (because LCD are not interlaced) so that is where 1080p came from. They also add ability to accept 1080p/60 signals which are not needed for TV or movie viewing.

The original reason that there are two HD resolutions of 720p/1080i is to accomondate both CRT and LCD/Plasma manufacturers. CRT uses 1080i due to reasons of bandwidth. 720p is used in flat panels because they are progressive displays and it was not economically possible to manufacture inexpensive LCD/Plasma at higher resolutions like 1080 (we are just seeing them now and they cost big $$$).

You have absolutely no idea what you are on about. 1080i is not a selectable resolution for use with the VGA cable.

You clearly do not an Xbox 360 hooked up to an HDTV television. It is very easy to tell the difference between 1080i and 720p. And you have it ass backwards. 1080i looks amazing in still images and slow motion, but it is clearly degraded during fast motion.

1080p is twice the resolution of 1080i. It's not a minor difference. 720p looks much better, and there is no situation where I choose 1080i over 720p, unless perhaps I was going to look at photographs.

Flagg

1080p, Bluray and gigabit ethernet are not minor upgrades. Again, we are not talking about differences that will be noticeable immediately, but keep in mind that when the PS2 launched, almost no games took up more than the 1GB capacity of the Dreamcast, nor did the games fully exploit the processing power increase that the PS2 offered either. I guarantee that developers will find ways to use the added capacity that bluray offers. Whether it will be compelling is another question, but I can tell you that no developer has ever complained that they had 'too much' storage capacity.

Gigabit may be of minor consequence today, but even today my FIOS can download at 30mb/s, which is already within spitting distance of the 80-90mbs limitations of 100mbit ethernet. While I don't really expect many people to have broadband lines substantially higher than 100mbit in the next couple years, it is entirely possible. The fiber line that I am already running on can easily support 10gbit or more, so it's not inconceivable that gigabit broadband will be available 5 years from now.

(Full Disclosure Time: I work for IBM.)
The cell architecture is complicated, but if it's exploited properly, it can be much more powerful than the PowerPC processor. Keep in mind that Sony did have access to the PowerPC if they wanted it, and Sony, IBM and Toshiba didn't invest $400 million dollars on creating the Cell processor on a whim. Also, the vast majority of developers of the Cell processor were actually the very same engineers at IBM that originally developed the PowerPC processor. Rumor has it that Sony threw a fit when they found out that IBM was going to be manufacturing the processors for the Wii and the Xbox 360, and despite the fact that IBM has full rights to license the Cell to anyone that they choose to, they mysteriously did not even offer it as an option to Nintendo and MS. For what it's worth, the Cell processor is specifically designed with home electronics in mind, and is far more efficient for such uses than a general use processor such as the PowerPC. Xbox hardware development chief Todd Holmdahl wasn't very happy about it either from what I understand, and because the Conroe processors from Intel were not going to be ready in time to use in the Xbox 360, he really had no other option than to 'settle' for the PowerPC processor.

Again, all of these differences will NOT be apparent immediately. Whether they are apparent years from now is anyone's guess, but I suspect that whether MS wants to or not, they will need to come up with a replacement for the Xbox 360 in another 4 years, because the system simply won't have the staying power to last for a typical 6-7 year lifespan.


Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that I am biased towards Sony, they should know that I own 4 xbox's (XBMC in every room), and 2 Xbox 360's. I used to own a PS2, but the only game that I ever played on it was GTA, and once that was released on the Xbox, I traded my PS2 in for another Xbox at EB.

I will probably buy a PS3, but it most likely will just collect dust because the only game that I really play is Halo.

And personally, I would love it if companies released new systems every 4 years. It might be less profitable for them, but it would mean much more powerful systems for us, so even the negatives that I attribute to the Xbox 360 could be potential positives if they do in fact release a new system 3 years from now.

Flagg

Excellent post!

Do you think MS will ship an XBox 720 (or whatever) if they're still bleeding from the 360 like they are from the original XBox?

I love it, these multi-nationals spend their billions, and competition is good for gamers (and it's good for MS too, e.g. All the Firefox features that will be found in IE7) so I'm not complaining, but if I was a shareholder, i'd be asking why. AFAIK the PS2 is still making Sony money (and games developers, publishers, distributers, etc).

Will be very interesting in a few years to see what happens if Vista and Office 2007 uptake is poor and the gravy train slows.

^^^

I don't think you need to worry about MS's financial well-being.

No that is not true.

1080i is 30 progressive frames per second at 1920x1080 resolution.
1080p is 60 progressive frames at 1920x1080 resolution.
Movies are 24 frames per second.
Games are anything between 5 and 60 frames per second.

In other words 1080i = 1080p for movies. There is *no* quality difference between 1080i and 1080p output on a 1080p display.

And you won't see any PS3 games rendered in true 1080p ever.

As for 1080i vs 720p displays there really isn't much of a difference. At 1080i there is a very slight increase in aliasing on fast moving diagonal lines. However it's not really noticeable unless you look for it. There's also line shimmer on extremely small horisontal lines, but again this is rare.

99% of the time 1080i looks totally progressive, and with more visible detail than 720p. Those who claim otherwise haven't seen 1080i with their own eyes on a high quality CRT.

VGA, component, whatever. The type of connection wasn't even the point. It's the resolution that matters.

Next time, express your agression elsewhere - or I'll slap you.

Almost right.

1080p60 is 60 progressive frames a second,
1080p is typically 24 frames a second
1080i is either 50 or 60 frames a second using progressive with segmented frames.

1080i = 1080p *if* the original source was digitized from 35-mm film *and* the tv set can de-interlace properly.

As for PS3 games, I will disagree on that one. Both the PS3 and the x360 has the power to render graphics in 1080p - as long as they aren't moving

Yeah I do have it ass backwards. I originally had it correct, but I was trying to think back to the previous discussion I had a long while ago, and decided I might be wrong so I switched it and ended up being wrong

And no I don't have a 360 or an HDtv, but I've experienced them in the home and at the store. I've also previously done a ton of research on different model TV's and what each capability of them are (except unlike regular consumers, I know what the terms mean and what they do).

Aggression? No, merely pointing out your arrogance inspite of your own stupidity. You are the only one showing agression here.



1080i is NOT 50 or 60 frames per second, it is 25 or 30fps, 50 or 60 fields per second.

just to add fuel to the fire it's 23.976 and 29.97 for NTSC, and 25FPS for PAL

wait 1080p is seriously only 25 fps?

well thats a sucky trade off

Alright, im so bloody lost with these fangled frame rates and fields and letters and numbers and acronyms and such...Someone want to tell me if i should run my 360 at 720p or 1080i (im using component if that makes a dffierence )? That would be nice to know seeing as how were getting massive amounts of mixed opinions on that.