Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Games' started by tim2006, Apr 15, 2007.
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??
hope halo 3 will be 1080p
virtua tennis 3 is 1080p
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!
Agreed. Very much so.
Component cables can carry a 1080p signal, yes, but whether or not there is any 1080p content, I don't know.
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.
Ok keep thinking that 1080i is better because of the number
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.
That depends on what p equals. If p>1.5, then 720p>1080.
Well played, sir.
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.
Although 1080i internally deinterlaced to 1080p also > 720p.
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.
i thought the 360 only did 1080p via VGA, which is the reason for the HDMI version coming out?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...