The HD era starts with PS3! [Archive]

View Full Version : The HD era starts with PS3!

Saibo

12-13-2005, 07:04 PM

axia777

12-13-2005, 07:25 PM

I agree fully wtih Mr. Harrison. The 360 is only partly HD. They royally screwed up on the DVD side of things. It has no true HD content and storage. If the hardware has to scale up games or movies to HD quality then it is not truely HD, period. Fake HD is what I think it is. If they went with one of the new DVD formats then Sony would have no ammo from which to shoot at the 360. They are foolish on this aspect of their descision making process for the system. But I guess it is to late now.

CrumCon

12-13-2005, 07:49 PM

Like i said many MS has just shut their mouth about this HD era talks.
They were the one talks so big about HD era, but now they silence like a mice lol

Nerve-Damage

12-13-2005, 08:07 PM

Even though it’s more “PR”…he’s correct about Xbox 360 not being true HD. True HD movies or HD material correct format is 1080p; while the others (1080i & 720p) are considered Sub-HD formats and 480p falling under the Enhance Definition Standard.

As for gaming...most of the PS3 games will probably use the 720p resolution, i.e. the true internal render form of it (GPU). Versus the pseudo 720p form used in the Xbox 360 games (i.e. video chip scaled). I think only the best developers will be able to use the PS3 1080p resolution without penalizing game performance or post processing effects just for the sake of using it.

CARTIER90

12-13-2005, 08:31 PM

Are MS relying on the less informed consumer to sell there consoles, the um 'casual' gamers out there. Us lot are pretty clued up on 1080 i and 1080 p , but does the average consumer (read soccor moms) . MS may do very well this generation by mopping up the left overs from the PS3, there are a lot of people out there who will see the core 360 package, notice there are some nice looking games and thats good enough for them.

Handycrap101

12-13-2005, 08:49 PM

I knew this was an issue with some of those who nit pick but what exactly will be the noticable difference between those who play 720p on the 360 and those who are gaming on the PS3?

Domination

12-13-2005, 09:31 PM

"Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios president Phil Harrison has claimed that Microsoft's Xbox 360 "doesn't have true HD functionality," saying that consumers seeking a HD experience will have to wait for the PS3 to arrive.

Speaking exclusively to GamesIndustry.biz this week, in an interview to be published tomorrow, Harrison described the Xbox 360 as "a lot better than their [Microsoft's] first introduction to the console business," but questioned the console's claim to being a High Definition device.

"The true definition of HD is the three elements of the HD value chain - the display, the content and the hardware to play back that content," he explained, "and PlayStation and Sony is the only organisation that has all three bits of the value chain together."....

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=13578

i dont think this has been posted yet. if it has..delete it please. I must say, i do agree with Phil on the 3 point HD chain.

I most definitely agree with Phil on this. When Allard first started talking about the HD era, it became a little annoying at first after countless times to almost complete insanity there after. For one, HD isn't important to the point of be all end all. It's just something to have. To use such a thing as an ace kinda makes me want to pull out my hair. To me, that's kinda like hyping the color of a console, and I have an HDTV. But the point is, we know it's there. We've already seen it's capability, and for us fortunate ones, even experienced them, especually at 720p. More needs to be delivered or shown to where the idea doesn't seem so washed-up. Give me something I haven't seen before - somethings that's going to keep my attention for more than a few seconds.

But, I think the worst part about it is when you don't even support the full HD experience, but then rely on it as your upper hand/trump card. That's kinda like a shoe store only selling shoelaces. Where is the experience? Where is the innovation? :shrug:

masonite

12-13-2005, 10:08 PM

Nerve-Damage

12-13-2005, 10:10 PM

I knew this was an issue with some of those who nit pick but what exactly will be the noticable difference between those who play 720p on the 360 and those who are gaming on the PS3?

The Xbox 360 has enough system bandwidth and main memory to handle 1280x720 game assets or material. It’s the 10MB of EDRAM (IMO) that hampers it from achieving a true internal GPU rendering of 1280x720p resolution. With 10MB already being borderline for 1280x720 resolution; and then adding in post processing effects (AA, AF, ECT…), that 10MB is more of a bottleneck than a advantage. Now if it had at least 15-18MB of EDRAM then there shouldn’t be a problem of handling the resolution along with the post processing effects.

Anyhow, optimally you’re looking at 1024x540 or 1280x520 resolution with post processing effects from the Xenos GPU then the data (video) being sent to the video chip to be scaled at 1280x720 resolution. Where’s the PS3 doesn’t need the assistance of the video chip to achieve 720p or 1080p (as far as I know).

Will we be able too tell the difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 respective versions of the 720p format? That heavily depends on the game source material or game assets (textures and so fourth) that are being used. If the game material or assets are 1280x720; then the PS3 shouldn’t have a problem displaying the full beauty of it. In the Xbox 360 case two things can happen...The developer can chose to reduce the source material to fit the internal render; thus saving memory bandwidth and allowing the video chip to scale the end result to 1280x720. Or they can use the same source material, thus allowing the GPU to render it at the lower resolution, then sending it to the video chip for the end result of 1280x720.

The first Xbox 360 option will yield some major graphical differences if the original source material is scaled back; however if the second option is chosen then the effect wouldn’t be so dramatic compared to the PS3. Either way PS3 doesn’t have to deal with these pesky little bottlenecks that the EDRAM memory brings to the Xbox 360.

Garfunkel

12-13-2005, 10:38 PM

Well said Phil Harrison & Nerve.

CrumCon

12-13-2005, 10:45 PM

Nerve you're so good

HereticPB

12-13-2005, 10:46 PM

I have heard this so many times. The more somebody says something the more people will believe it.

Neither can do HDTV correctly.

CrumCon

12-13-2005, 10:49 PM

I have heard this so many times. The more somebody says something the more people will believe it.

Neither can do HDTV correctly.

apparently PS3 can.

Garfunkel

12-13-2005, 10:53 PM

Ps3 cirtantly can.

Nerve-Damage

12-14-2005, 12:08 AM

@ Yes_It's_Me & CrumCon thank you both :cheers:

I have heard this so many times. The more somebody says something the more people will believe it.

Neither can do HDTV correctly.

As far as the PS3 is concerned; I believe it can and then some. Knowing that the RSX is based off (and improved upon) the G70 design or possibly the G80 core, I see know reason why PS3 can’t achieve proper HD standards. Sometimes I run crazy puesdo like PS3 gaming test on my computer system (connected to my Toshiba 57in LCOS set). Removing one of my eVGA 7800 GTX graphic cards from my system, I can get steady frame rates at 1920x1080 with all the features turned on in either F.E.A.R or FarCry. So if the PS3 lives up to the paper specs, then my High-end PC shall be taking a vacation pretty soon. :splitspin

Saibo

12-14-2005, 12:44 AM

its interesting to compare this type of comment to the ones that microsoft make, harrison at least compliments microsoft, and states relatively politely his beliefs about the definition of "HD era". Microsoft, on the other hand, make statements that usually involve slinging sh*t in sony & nintendo's faces.....

Yeah, thats the reason i respect Phil so much, he has alot of class. The full interview well be up tomorrow, hopefully it has some new info on the PS3.

tazz3

12-14-2005, 12:59 AM

Sony is kinda right the 360 is not a true hd player out of the box like
the PS3 will be.
but the human eye cant tell if a game is runing in 720p or 180 p

jaxmkii

12-14-2005, 01:04 AM

I have heard this so many times. The more somebody says something the more people will believe it.

Neither can do HDTV correctly. i dont know how you came to that... PS3 sure sounds like it can

VG Aficionado

12-14-2005, 02:58 AM

Sony is kinda right the 360 is not a true hd player out of the box like
the PS3 will be.
but the human eye cant tell if a game is runing in 720p or 180 pI guess you mean 1080p.

Why the hell are you assuming that "the human eye" can't see any difference between 720p and 1080p? Unless you already had the opportunity to ask every human being on Earth, which I doubt, you should bury that nonsense very deep in the ground (or make an appointment with an ophthalmologist) because I for one have experienced different HD resolutions and I tell you once you'll get to compare them properly, you are going to feel so awed that you won't want to use standard definition resolutions again or even 720p against 1080p.

masonite

12-14-2005, 03:28 AM

I guess you mean 1080p.

Why the hell are you assuming that "the human eye" can't see any difference between 720p and 1080p? Unless you already had the opportunity to ask every human being on Earth, which I doubt, you should bury that nonsense very deep in the ground (or make an appointment with an ophthalmologist) because I for one have experienced different HD resolutions and I tell you once you'll get to compare them properly, you are going to feel so awed that you won't want to use standard definition resolutions again or even 720p against 1080p.

Yup, the human eye sure can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p.

anyone who doesn't think so take a look at this:

link (http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html)

some point of interest:

-max resolution of the human eye:

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record

-telling the difference between different quality printed photos (not the same as telling the difference between a 720p video and 1080p video, but probably easy to use for comparison anyway)

Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity. The 10600 pixels over 20 inches corresponds to 530 pixels per inch, which would indeed appear very sharp. Note in a recent printer test I showed a 600 ppi print had more detail than a 300 ppi print on an HP1220C printer (1200x2400 print dots). I've conducted some blind tests where a viewer had to sort 4 photos (150, 300, 600 and 600 ppi prints). The two 600 ppi were printed at 1200x1200 and 1200x2400 dpi. So far all have gotten the correct order of highest to lowest ppi (includes people up to age 50).

based on this, i'd say it would be very easy to tell the difference betwen the two resolutions - if it was impossible, they wouldn't bother making TV's capable of 1080p, as no-one would know the difference.

Nameless

12-14-2005, 06:31 AM

Rep+ for Nerve!
I always find your comments informative. Peace

Nerve-Damage

12-14-2005, 06:34 AM

^^ Thanks :angel:

The_One

12-14-2005, 06:46 AM

Nameless

12-14-2005, 06:53 AM

If my memory serves me correctly Mitsubishi & Sony have true 1080P televisions on the market. I think Samsung will have a new 1080P DLP launch in the near future.

If I can find model numbers I will post them later.

Nerve-Damage

12-14-2005, 07:04 AM

Quick question:
Does any TV out on the market currently even support 1080p?
As far as I know, 1080p isn't actually a signal format. 1080 interlaced signals are converted to 1080p via hardware within the TV, and I don't think any TV supports 1080p YET. Of course, I could be wrong.

Most High-end LCOS & High-end DLP HDTV carry the 1080p scan system.

I myself have two of these models: Toshiba 57HLX82 1080P Rear Projector (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,822048,00.asp) ;)

version

12-14-2005, 07:06 AM

http://www.holografika.com/holovision128w.avi :)

CrumCon

12-14-2005, 06:27 PM

could anyone post the pic where it shows EDHD, HD ready and True HD table?

i need it pls

Saibo

12-14-2005, 08:39 PM

Most High-end LCOS & High-end DLP HDTV carry the 1080p scan system.

I myself have two of these models: Toshiba 57HLX82 1080P Rear Projector (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,822048,00.asp) ;)

OMG, Nerve you must be one rich dude! at $8,995 a piece..i'll have to pass..and its not just the price..but not a fan of projection TV. Its kinda tough to find a 1080P TV with the right balance of technology and price even in todays market.

http://www.holografika.com/holovision128w.avi :)

Hmmm, it would be kinda odd to play a game on that thing...i'll have to pass(its kinda 2.5 D for me :P ) i'll wait for the HoloDeck :P

Nerve-Damage

12-15-2005, 05:08 AM

OMG, Nerve you must be one rich dude! at $8,995 a piece..i'll have to pass..and its not just the price..but not a fan of projection TV. Its kinda tough to find a 1080P TV with the right balance of technology and price even in todays market.

Hmmm, it would be kinda odd to play a game on that thing...i'll have to pass(its kinda 2.5 D for me :P ) i'll wait for the HoloDeck :P

I do fairly well…. :drunks:

However the prices (I pay) are quite lower since I own a small business that deals with Home Theater and computer equipment. Lots of Wholesaler contacts and bulk purchasing helps. ;)