PDA

View Full Version : can the 360 do 1080p with component cables


tim2006
Apr 15, 2007, 08:53 AM
Can the 360 do 1080p with component cables and are there any 1080p games? What will Halo 3 be 720p?

guitarmaster18
Apr 15, 2007, 09:03 AM
Can the 360 do 1080p with component cables and are there any 1080p games? What will Halo 3 be 720p?


No, Halo will most certanly be 1080i or more... Why would you think 720p??

Nicolasdec
Apr 15, 2007, 09:21 AM
hope halo 3 will be 1080p:) :) :) :)

Maclarny
Apr 15, 2007, 10:29 AM
virtua tennis 3 is 1080p

PCtoMac-change
Apr 15, 2007, 10:42 AM
No, Halo will most certanly be 1080i or more... Why would you think 720p??


Because 720p>1080i

huck500
Apr 15, 2007, 10:48 AM
Is the resolution the most important aspect of a game? I'd rather see 720p that runs at a steady 60fps than stuttering 1080p or i. I guess I'm in the minority, since so many games seem to release with great graphics but sub-par framerates...:(

I couldn't play Saint's Row for that reason... thank Crom for Crackdown!:D

Markleshark
Apr 15, 2007, 11:27 AM
Because 720p>1080i

Agreed. Very much so.

apfhex
Apr 15, 2007, 02:21 PM
Can the 360 do 1080p with component cables
Component cables can carry a 1080p signal, yes, but whether or not there is any 1080p content, I don't know.

yadmonkey
Apr 15, 2007, 02:51 PM
I'd like to personally thank Sony for causing so much confusion about 1080i/p. Here are a couple of interesting facts:

1. Component cables can do 1080p, but there are very few TVs which will do true 1080p over component. Very very few.

2. Most 1080p TVs cannot accept a 1080p signal, even over HDMI. It's much cheaper for the manufacturer to take a 1080i signal and convert it onboard to 1080p than to pay for the true 1080p-ready electronics.

3. Since most people don't have 1080p TVs and most 1080p TVs don't accept true 1080p signals, Sony has managed to sell the importance of something very few people need.

guitarmaster18
Apr 15, 2007, 03:23 PM
Because 720p>1080i

No, 720p<1080

PCtoMac-change
Apr 15, 2007, 03:53 PM
No, 720p<1080

Ok keep thinking that 1080i is better because of the number :D :D :D :D

jane doe
Apr 15, 2007, 05:06 PM
Mine is doing 1080p thru the Xbox. Now I don't have any content (yet) for 1080p but thats what the Xbox says its doing and thats what the TV is showing its receiving. :)

yadmonkey
Apr 15, 2007, 05:11 PM
No, 720p<1080

That depends on what p equals. If p>1.5, then 720p>1080.

mkubal
Apr 15, 2007, 05:15 PM
That depends on what p equals. If p>1.5, then 720p>1080.

Well played, sir. :D

GFLPraxis
Apr 15, 2007, 09:30 PM
No, 720p<1080

1080p > 720p > 1080i.

The P is Progressive. You're getting about double the information out of a progressive signal than an interlaced, so the motion looks way smoother, and it probably takes more power to render.

So 720p > 1080i.

1080p beats both of them.

gloss
Apr 16, 2007, 08:06 AM
Although 1080i internally deinterlaced to 1080p also > 720p.

Hmm.

Nicolasdec
Apr 16, 2007, 08:24 AM
is 1080i better than 720p? I know 1080p is better than all of them. its funny on my ps3 i cant get the P signals i tryed 720p and it dosent work i can only go to 1800i, but with the xbox 360 i can go to 1080P.

fishkorp
Apr 16, 2007, 08:42 AM
i thought the 360 only did 1080p via VGA, which is the reason for the HDMI version coming out?

mrgreen4242
Apr 16, 2007, 08:53 AM
Because 720p>1080i

Agreed. Very much so.

Ok keep thinking that 1080i is better because of the number :D :D :D :D

It's really depends on your TV set and the source material. 1080i delvers more data, period. Both more data per frame (there's over 2 million pixels in a full frame of 1080i) and even on a field vs. frame comparison (one FIELD - half a frame - of 1080i has 1,036,800 pixels compared to 921,600 for a full field in 720p).

Now, 1080i only comes at 60 fields per second, so you're getting 30 full frames per second. That's 62.2 million pixels per second. A full 720p60 will get you just 55.2 million pps. Not all 720 material is 60 fps, though, much of it is 30 fps (movies are a good example, as most are filmed at 24fps anyways, so anything beyond that is just repeats of the same frame). 720p30 is just 27.6 million pps.

Of course, SD TV (at it's best on a full frame DVD) gets you all of 10 million or so pps, so any of these is an improvement.

Now, any progressive scan image has potential to look better than an interlaced one, of course. But that's going to come down to the sort of material your watching and the deinterlacer. A nice 1080p TV that can take 1080i60 (frames) signals, and convert them to 1080p30 (frames) well will look better than a 720p set under almost any circumstance. I say almost, as there's always going to be SOME sources that will not look great interlaced. Lots of fast vertical movement can cause tearing, cross fade transitions can have some issues, etc. However, with the HD resolutions, the scan lines are so thin that seeing them on any normal sized set from a normal viewing distance is near impossible. And well mastered source files generally minimize those issues as well. I've NEVER seen a scanline/tearing effect on my 1080i TV.

All that said, my next TV will probably be 720p because that's certainly good enough, imo, and I expect those prices to fall faster than 1080p sets. :)

Krevnik
Apr 16, 2007, 10:28 AM
i thought the 360 only did 1080p via VGA, which is the reason for the HDMI version coming out?

It does 1080p over Component and VGA, but here is the problem:

- Few sets actually accept 1080p over component (even 1080p sets that /can/ accept a 1080p signal, which includes mine).
- Few 1080p sets have a VGA port.

So, there are sets out there that have neither (especially as 1080p pricing drops into ranges where you don't have every port in existance in the box).

And if you are using a 360 for HD-DVD, then you /do/ need VGA or HDMI, otherwise you are limited in what resolutions you can use over component (although 720p set owners aren't affected). And I would actually like to not have to swap the VGA input between my 360 and my Mac Pro all the time (World of Warcraft at 1920x1080 at 40" is pretty good), and use one of my wasted HDMI ports for the 360 instead.

whooleytoo
Apr 16, 2007, 11:28 AM
You know, I was obsessed with buying a progressive scan TV when I bought my HDTV, and since 1080p TVs are expensive here I bought a 720p.

I don't know why though, I'm starting to realise that in reality I can't tell the difference between 480i and 480p (I'm sure there is a difference, but unless I can watch the same programme on two TVs side by side, I can't see it). I even spent the best part of an hour switching back and forth, and going right up to the screen to try and pick out a difference. </geek!>

So it's pretty doubtful I'd see the difference between 1080i or 1080p either. Perhaps it's just my TV is quite good at deinterlacing, I don't know, but 1080p just doesn't seem worth (any) extra money to me.

mrgreen4242
Apr 16, 2007, 11:47 AM
You know, I was obsessed with buying a progressive scan TV when I bought my HDTV, and since 1080p TVs are expensive here I bought a 720p.

I don't know why though, I'm starting to realise that in reality I can't tell the difference between 480i and 480p (I'm sure there is a difference, but unless I can watch the same programme on two TVs side by side, I can't see it). I even spent the best part of an hour switching back and forth, and going right up to the screen to try and pick out a difference. </geek!>

So it's pretty doubtful I'd see the difference between 1080i or 1080p either. Perhaps it's just my TV is quite good at deinterlacing, I don't know, but 1080p just doesn't seem worth (any) extra money to me.

Ya, a lot of things effect picture quality more than interlacing vs. non... color saturations, black levels, contrast ratios... all of those have, imo, a much more dramatic effect of the observed quality of a picture. In many of those aspects, CRTs, even though generally limited to interlaced resolutions, look a lot better than their progressive scan brethren.

yadmonkey
Apr 16, 2007, 01:24 PM
It's really depends on your TV set and the source material. 1080i delvers more data, period. Both more data per frame (there's over 2 million pixels in a full frame of 1080i) and even on a field vs. frame comparison (one FIELD - half a frame - of 1080i has 1,036,800 pixels compared to 921,600 for a full field in 720p).

Now, 1080i only comes at 60 fields per second, so you're getting 30 full frames per second. That's 62.2 million pixels per second. A full 720p60 will get you just 55.2 million pps. Not all 720 material is 60 fps, though, much of it is 30 fps (movies are a good example, as most are filmed at 24fps anyways, so anything beyond that is just repeats of the same frame). 720p30 is just 27.6 million pps.

Of course, SD TV (at it's best on a full frame DVD) gets you all of 10 million or so pps, so any of these is an improvement.

Now, any progressive scan image has potential to look better than an interlaced one, of course. But that's going to come down to the sort of material your watching and the deinterlacer. A nice 1080p TV that can take 1080i60 (frames) signals, and convert them to 1080p30 (frames) well will look better than a 720p set under almost any circumstance. I say almost, as there's always going to be SOME sources that will not look great interlaced. Lots of fast vertical movement can cause tearing, cross fade transitions can have some issues, etc. However, with the HD resolutions, the scan lines are so thin that seeing them on any normal sized set from a normal viewing distance is near impossible. And well mastered source files generally minimize those issues as well. I've NEVER seen a scanline/tearing effect on my 1080i TV.

All that said, my next TV will probably be 720p because that's certainly good enough, imo, and I expect those prices to fall faster than 1080p sets. :)

An excellent post! The one big and relevant exception is that while what you posted holds true to movies, since they are generally filmed at 24fps, there's little doubt that videogames look best at 60fps. And since this thread started on the topic of the Xbox 360, I'd have to say true 720p60 is going to look better than the standard 1080p30 (re-interlaced), which most 1080p sets do.

I think the big misconception, thanks to Sony, is that most people really don't realize that their 1080p sets aren't really giving them full 1080p60. So the fact that the PS3 outputs 1080p is useless to most people with 1080p sets, because 1080i makes for the identical end result. For movies, that's great, but as a gamer, I want 60fps. That's why I too am in the market for a 720p set.

Krevnik
Apr 16, 2007, 02:05 PM
An excellent post! The one big and relevant exception is that while what you posted holds true to movies, since they are generally filmed at 24fps, there's little doubt that videogames look best at 60fps. And since this thread started on the topic of the Xbox 360, I'd have to say true 720p60 is going to look better than the standard 1080p30 (re-interlaced), which most 1080p sets do.

I think the big misconception, thanks to Sony, is that most people really don't realize that their 1080p sets aren't really giving them full 1080p60. So the fact that the PS3 outputs 1080p is useless to most people with 1080p sets, because 1080i makes for the identical end result. For movies, that's great, but as a gamer, I want 60fps. That's why I too am in the market for a 720p set.

Well, the problem here is that while Sony is delivering sets with 1080p/60 capability (I own one), and the cheaper 1080p set makers aren't. Sony promises something, and the /other/ manufacturers aren't because the costs of doing it right are too high for the mass-market right now. So they ride Sony's hype to get in on the '1080p revolution'.

The reality of why I have a 1080p set?

1080 lines for movies and broadcasts that are filmed in 1080i... progressive for gaming and not having to sacrifice to get either. WoW looks pretty good on it as well... better colors than my standard monitor.

Halo 3 will be in 720p, and it will be good... ;)

patseguin
Apr 16, 2007, 03:05 PM
I believe the 360 will do 1080p over component for games but not DVD. You need a VGA connection for 1080p movies. Unless Microsoft came out with an update for that...

Old Mac Geezer
Apr 16, 2007, 10:42 PM
It's really depends on your TV set and the source material. 1080i delvers more data, period. Both more data per frame (there's over 2 million pixels in a full frame of 1080i) and even on a field vs. frame comparison (one FIELD - half a frame - of 1080i has 1,036,800 pixels compared to 921,600 for a full field in 720p).

Now, 1080i only comes at 60 fields per second, so you're getting 30 full frames per second. That's 62.2 million pixels per second. A full 720p60 will get you just 55.2 million pps. Not all 720 material is 60 fps, though, much of it is 30 fps (movies are a good example, as most are filmed at 24fps anyways, so anything beyond that is just repeats of the same frame). 720p30 is just 27.6 million pps.

Of course, SD TV (at it's best on a full frame DVD) gets you all of 10 million or so pps, so any of these is an improvement.

Now, any progressive scan image has potential to look better than an interlaced one, of course. But that's going to come down to the sort of material your watching and the deinterlacer. A nice 1080p TV that can take 1080i60 (frames) signals, and convert them to 1080p30 (frames) well will look better than a 720p set under almost any circumstance. I say almost, as there's always going to be SOME sources that will not look great interlaced. Lots of fast vertical movement can cause tearing, cross fade transitions can have some issues, etc. However, with the HD resolutions, the scan lines are so thin that seeing them on any normal sized set from a normal viewing distance is near impossible. And well mastered source files generally minimize those issues as well. I've NEVER seen a scanline/tearing effect on my 1080i TV.

All that said, my next TV will probably be 720p because that's certainly good enough, imo, and I expect those prices to fall faster than 1080p sets. :)

Where 720p outshines 1080i/p, though is in video games. You are better off with a 720p set when gaming because of the fps issue. With 1080i/p only being able to deliver 30fps, you can end up missing a lot due to video lag in games that try to show a lot of information on screen at the same time (like if you're hanging around in a city zone or guild raiding on any of the major MMORPG games on a holiday weekend). The increased maximum throughput of 720p60 can mitigate much of the lag you would experience in situations that would cause your game console or computer to have a seizure at higher resolutions. Face it, if you are playing Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War or Ghost Recon and your or your teammates video stutters for even a second, it could be a wipeout for all of you. The difference between 60fps and 30fps could be the difference between winning and losing.

And for whoever mentioned Sony making 1080p60 televisions, why?? 1080p60 will NEVER be a broadcast standard due to the massive bandwith the signal would take up and it's useless for movies, even in hi-def because speeds in excess of the 24fps the film is shot in are redundant. Don't try to say it is better for games, because it isn't. The power required to juggle 2 million + pixels around on the screen at the same time is awesome. Many of the game publishers who announced they would be making games in 1080p for PS3 have been backing away from those statements and releasing in 720p/1080i instead. I honestly think it is too early for consoles to be trying to push that sort of resolution at 60fps. Next generation, maybe, but not this one. I think you will see a lot of lag in games that push this generation of consoles that far.

Another point in the 1080p vs 720p debate is that at normal viewing distance, you can't tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p screen, except on the very largest (60 inches and up) screens. You have to be 2 feet or less from the screen on most models before you begin to notice any pixelation or jaggies on the 720p set, so if you can't see the difference from your Lazy Boy, what is the point of paying all that money for it??