hmmmmmmmmm.....,

thts goood news but i don't have XBOX 360 i got PS2 willl buy PS3 lolz

hahahahahaheheheheheheheheh

I believe I read in a home theatre magazine last week that the human eye doesn't see the difference between 1080p and 720p on screens less than 60 inches. I guess what I am saying is the majority of customers probably won't even need 1080p.

For me, I will make sure I buy a big enough screen and make sure it supports 1080p resolution. Waiting till prices come down just a bit more, since plasma and LCD are supposedly going to dramatically drop in price this Christmas, meaning next Christmas it will be even cheaper!

You go ahead and buy that 1080p set that cant actually display 1080p. Read up before you spend more money on a set that can accept a 1080p input, because you will still se 1080i on the actual screen.

Let's see...
If the XBox junkies would just buy the XBox and enjoy it, and the PS3 folks would fantasize over their choice of vaporware, each could simply enjoy their respective overpriced platform of choice. And then you could choose to debate the 1080p format - a format that no broadcast network has embraced, and few folks have monitors capable of displaying, and even less program material exists.

Whatever you do, don't examine just what program material necessitates being viewed in 1080p! Let's see, is it Oprah, Jerry Springer or the Simpsons? Quote: Until then, you're stuck pretty much watching crap quality HD. Indeed!!! Hahahaha!

Why not go back to debating the relative advantages of Star fleet versus Klingon ships kids?

shush little boy, the adults are talking.

BANDWIDTH!!! It is all about bandwidth. Cable and satellite providers cannot handle the bandwidth required of 1080p for all of their subscribers, no way no how. Major upgrades are required. 1080p will only work with HD-DVD, BluRay, or gaming consoles. Even then one movie would probably take up most of BluRay DVD with no extras.

its not a question about bandwidth. MOST mainstream ISP's use transparent proxies to conserve bandwidth/save money. Sites are seemingly fast not just because of the physical speed, but because the content from these sites are already cached on the ISP local network thus giving significant boosts. Why does ISP's use the transparent proxies? NOT because of bandwidth limitations, but to save what THEY have to pay for and make bigger profits.

The reason 720p and 1080i fit in the bandwidth is because they are being highly compressed in MPEG-2 (like HDV) that uses the same bandwidth as SD. When IPTV takes over, and the bandwidth can be spared from 1000 constant streams to all houses in a neighborhood, down to maybe 100 streams from the same neighborhood, you will be able to get less compressed 1080p. Until then, you're stuck pretty much watching crap quality HD (even though it still looks pretty nice most of the time) from cable and satelite providers.

Truth is, the bandwidth is there, they just haven't switched everyone over to IPTV yet, which I am dying for. Hopefully sometime next year we will start seeing it.

I'm not exactly certain why you say ISPs are relevant to this topic. We're talking about broadcasting stations and networks, whether they be terrestrial- or satellite-based. Internet bandwidth is irrelevant to digital television transmission.

Even if it were relevant, do you mean to suggest that they would locally cache HDTV content??? I think that would take just a little bit more storage space than a few thousand JPG and GIF images. :)

Hm. I recall Microsoft saying something about 1080p not being necessary or even important back at the 360's launch.

I wonder what changed. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Nothing. Its still not necessary or important. The ONLY realy benefit from the 360 will be the HD-DVD drive.

Other than that, its just taking away ammo from Sony being able to claim they do 1080P and MS doesn't. Its silly that this was necessary, but it seems Sony feels the need to rattle off all sorts of specs that really will be used very little or have no positive impact.

* PS3 does 1080P

* PS3 has free online gaming (yet they still say developers are free to charge - so it is really free?)

* PS3 has motion sensors which are better than rumble - Sony didn't want to pay to license rumble tech and we don't know if motion is better yet. It certainly didn't catch on 10 years ago when Microsoft first introduced it.

Bottom line - Microsoft just wants to stop the Sony PR Virus from infecting all the uneducated purchasers. And, don't confuse me for a Sony hater - I think the PS3 will be a decent console - I'm just not buying the Sony hype.

Exactly. The only thing that changed is they got tired of Sony and their legions of zealots pointing at the 360 and screaming about how it didn't support 1080p. They knew the clueless masses would see that and believe it was really something that hurt the 360. It's still not necessary or important though, but try telling that to the consumers.

Edit: This was supposed to be a reply to mshulman, and somehow I double posted too. Either my browser is messing up or I'm more drunk than I thought.

Bottom line:

Xbots will settle for less from Microsoft and get screw over.
Sony fanboys demand the best.

1080p isn't necessarily "the best". Haven't you been paying attention in class?

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/reality.html (thanks to Lazarus98)

What changed, they can now offer it, so now it's important.

It's like "HDMI is not wanted by our customers", as they can't currently offer it. When they can, overnight it will be "HDMI provides the best picture quality".

Microsoft have the best spin doctors in the world, and will make people believe what Microsoft want them to believe, even with their appaling track record.

Equalled only by Sony, it seems. :p

Not at all. FYI - 360 came out 1 year ago. Any system coming out a year later should have something that sets it apart.

It would be very interesting to compare how many users of the 360 or PS3 can actually make use of HDMI or 1080P. Its likely a small percentage - exactly why MS didn't include these items, which would have forced a larger price on the console. When its needed by more users, we'll be able to get it.

Its amazing what a little marketing will do.

Its also too bad, because it gives people an incorrect perception. Going out and buying a 1080P set today isn't necessary. Most people would probably be better off buying a better less expensive 720P TV.

Technology changes too quickly these days - I just don't see the point (unless you have an excess of money) of spending a ton of money on a TV when the technology is just going to get better over the next few years and prices will drop.

I guess the point is that even today, 1080p still seems to be a little too far out of reach for the vast majority of consumers worldwide. A year ago with the Xbox 360's release, it was even more so. You can't necessarily accuse them for lack of vision, for at least the hardware is indeed apparently capable of the higher resolution, and they've addressed it now... not that it really matters all that much for quite a while.

Xbox360 and PS3 users alike will likely have the same obstacles to overcome to enjoy true HDTV in the first place.

To be fair, Sony has had a year to figure out how to make their next-gen console "better" than Microsoft's. Naturally, HDMI and 1080p is more relevant today than it used to be... but again, that's a whole year for Sony to ponder where Microsoft went "wrong". Microsoft apparently wanted to establish console dominance, which is what they're well on their way to doing. Sony decided to play it safe and release their console with all the trimmings the following year.

And I believe Microsoft stated that when the market was ready for 1080p, they would address that issue. Nothing wrong with that in my book. Not really sure how that can be classified as spin. What I consider spin is Sony's stance all along that has touted 1080p as a viable and attractive technology for anyone that purchases their new console, when in reality it's a format that for the foreseeable future only truly appeals to the elite. In other words... the few, the proud, the rich.

What changed is companies like Sony using the buzzword 1080p, which no TV in the world can actually show. They can take a 1080p/24 fps input and then show it as 1080i/30 fps.

It is all converted to 1080i/30 because you can't watch 1080p at 24 fps without a bad flicker.

Now Microsoft has to add this BS just to appease the idiots who dont' know anything about 1080p.

www.thedvdwars.com

The tryth is out there

Oh, if only I had the ability to go back in time to the Xbox 360's release date last holiday season and ask each one of the thousands of people that stood in line at Wal-Marts everywhere and asked them "Do you care that the Xbox 360 doesn't have 1080p?"

They'd probably respond with "Is that a skateboarding game? When does that come out?"

People can't demand what they don't know about. I see people all the time (and I was one of them at one time) who don't know what 'Broadcast in Hi-Def 720p where available' means every time they see it on their screens when one of their favorite shows is on. Sure, they know what Hi-Def means (or think they do), but most people are still clueless about the specifics... and that's what major manufacturers and retailers are hoping to capitalize on this holiday season.

HDMI is noisier than component video, it should be better but it's not. I can pick the HDMI vs component every time because it's got so many wierd artifacts and slightly different motion.

It's hard to explain but I'll take component any day of the week. My projector and 65" both have HDMI and I switched them both over to component.

HDMI is another buzzword, XBOX doesn't need it and niether does the PS3. If you have the means, try both on your set and you will see what I mean, the black levels look better and the HDMI seems a little washed out.

I've tried this with 3 different sources, all excellent DVD players and I got the same results every time.

It's funny, but after almost 15 years with my old Pioneer VSX-9900S Pro Logic receiver (that I've been extremely happy with), I finally decided to step up to Dolby Digital / DTS via a Pioneer VSX-816... a very nice mid-range receiver, excellent features for the price. However, the most common negative review about it knocks it for not having HDMI connectivity options, and this is a very recent model in Pioneer's lineup.

All in all, I'm not that concerned since I don't plan on having the funds available anytime soon to purchase anything else with HDMI capability to use with it.

I need a different job... :)

Ive read enough post here to have some laughs.. most of you have no idea what you're talking about.

Both MS and Sony are part of the Orgonaizations that invented and implemented HDMI. HDMI was invented purely for copy protection. All companies involved in the data protection, including the above formentioned ( yes SOny, Microsoft ) have pretty much agreed to hold off on using Copy protection for HDMI till 2012.. So what does this mean ? It means ANYONE can watch 1080p.. REAL 1080p on either console without HDMI... THERE WILL BE NO Downgrade of quality.. and even if it was 2012 right now.. the downgrade of quality would be like 540P ( 480P is regular DVD ) so thats still better quality.. There more then enough bandwidth and power in either machine to display 1080p movies..

Also the reason PS3 has that silly a** half a** motion detection in its controller was they didnt want to pay Immersion for the lawsuit they lost.. not because its better technology. Most people I've emailed who have actually had their hands on this new controller think rumble will be missed bigtime in the longrun..

First off you're wrong, even though some things you said were right. MS HD-DVD player will do 1080/24 - typicall displayed at 1080/72 frame.. thats 3 smooth frames per each frame of 24 frame encoded Movie. No skipped frames.. no stutter.. no blanks.. Understand ?? There's a link below if not..

http://www.xbox.com/en-U...ries/20061003-hddvd.htm

Ive read enough post here to have some laughs.. most of you have no idea what you're talking about.

Both MS and Sony are part of the Orgonaizations that invented and implemented HDMI. HDMI was invented purely for copy protection. All companies involved in the data protection, including the above formentioned ( yes SOny, Microsoft ) have pretty much agreed to hold off on using Copy protection for HDMI till 2012.. So what does this mean ? It means ANYONE can watch 1080p.. REAL 1080p on either console without HDMI... THERE WILL BE NO Downgrade of quality.. and even if it was 2012 right now.. the downgrade of quality would be like 540P ( 480P is regular DVD ) so thats still better quality.. There more then enough bandwidth and power in either machine to display 1080p movies..

Also the reason PS3 has that silly a** half a** motion detection in its controller was they didnt want to pay Immersion for the lawsuit they lost.. not because its better technology. Most people I've emailed who have actually had their hands on this new controller think rumble will be missed bigtime in the longrun..

"No skipped frames.. no stutter.. no blanks.."

Repeated frames are just as bad, in my opinion... which is just what is done to the material when it is viewed at a resolution or refresh rate that it wasn't designed for during the 3:2 pulldown conversion process. True, it's a necessary evil that we have all had to suffer for years, but I digress...

ViperRohb34, I find it curious to see that although you claim most here have no idea what we're talking about, you decided to post replies to two of the most knowledgeable individuals in this particular thread who have contributed the most logical reasons why 1080p in the living room is a pipe dream (Hollywood and mshulman). Furthermore, had you decided to spend more time actually reading most of the discussion taking place instead of laughing, you would probably have discovered that neither one of them had said anything to the contrary of what you were replying to in the first place. The main point of discussion is not whether each console is capable of handling 1080p or HDMI (due to processing power or bandwidth), but instead how utterly worthless it is at this point that Microsoft and Sony are touting the ability of the consoles to display at that resolution to begin with.

We all know by now that both consoles support 1080p... kinda the whole point of the discussion taking place here. Quoting some key lines from your beloved article you referenced will shed some light on this for you.

"1080p-60 Resolution
The "p" at the end of 1080 stands for progressive, and the distinction between it and an interlaced image is important to understand, if only to know that it makes little difference to films on HD DVD that start at 24 frames per second."

"This 60p signal can be beneficial to a display, but only when starting with something filmed in 60p. Film material, which is shot in 24p, will not show any advantage on a modern display."

...and which films have been shot in 1080p/60? If no films are shot in a fast-refresh 1080p/60 native format, what's the point? If it ultimately makes no difference showing 1080p/24(72) content on screens designed to accept 1080p/60 inputs (and how many of those are available?), again, what's the point? Which leads me to my next issue...

"1080p-24 Resolution
Here we have the optimum resolution, so it's valuable to note just how it works. Though called 1080p-24, it is typically displayed at 1080p-72 since this frame rate takes the 24 FPS native to the film and the HD DVD and shows each frame three times. Incidentally, this is also how most theatre projectors work using three-bladed shutters.

This resolution is progressive so you don't have to worry about visual artifacts appearing, and because 72 is a multiple of 24, you also don't have to worry about 3:2 pulldown causing an unnatural judder in movement. This is therefore the ideal framerate to display movies. PC playback can typically provide this frame rate, but today very few displays support this, though we expect to see more in the near future."

...and how many HD televisions actually support the non-standard 72Hz refresh rates? True enough, most every computer monitor and video card out there can support 72Hz (and well beyond). Oh, and let's not forget theater projectors, too. However, if the main reason to hop on the HDTV bandwagon is to have a theater in your living room, and practically no televisions support the non-standard refresh rates required by the "optimum resolution", again... what's the point?

The problem is that there is no graceful way of converting films that have been shot digitally at the standard 24 frames to a format that is able to be viewed "as it should be" in your living room. Until displays are more commonplace that are able to handle the standard 24 FPS material without "hacking" techniques such as inverse telecine (3:2 or 2:3 pulldown, depending on what region you live in) that introduce combing effects in the picture, 1080p is a moot point unless your satisfied viewing the material in a theater or on your computer monitor. Understand??

HDMI was invented for simplicity, pure and simple. It was invented to serve as a means to transmit high-definition uncompressed video and multi-channel audio along a single, simple interface.

Here are a couple of links that may help you to better understand the subject that you're trying to impress everyone with by way of your vast knowledge and expertise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

http://www.hdmi.org/index.asp

Nowhere is Microsoft mentioned as being credited as co-inventing HDMI. Also, genius, HDCP (High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection) is the copy protection implementation being developed for use with DVI and HDMI connections... and Intel (along with Silicon Image) is the developer of that proprietary technology, with Microsoft stating that they intend to license the technology for use in Windows Vista. Lastly, it's movie studios (not just Sony, and certainly not Microsoft) that have agreed not to use Image Constraint Tokens on movies for quite a while due to the overwhelming lack of HDCP-capable televisions now.

So what does this mean? Double-posting the same non-sense does not make it any truer.

I did read it and I knew most of that already, it convincing guys like DaveBG and Mark that 1080p doesnt mean anything. Like I said, people are idiots.

The upgrade for the 360 is all smoke and mirrors, just like Blu_Ray's revolutionary 1080p output. It's just to appease the uninformed morons.

Although I generally try to refrain from calling people names, the only uninformed morons I believe are the ones who spout superiority of one format over another, regardless of how it may affect consumers in the long run due to a seemingly narrow-minded view of the big picture... evangelizing it as though they were receiving compensation from the backers of the format in the first place.

The vast majority of consumers (like me) are simply uninformed victims. That's why I'm glad this discussion is taking place.

I love it, I've been try to say this forever, there is no true 1080p!

I think it's more about saying it has the same capabilities on paper than anything else.

I see most "HD Ready" TVs over here (in the UK) and their maximum resolution is basically going to be for 720p.

Still, I've heard lots of dumb asses with old school TV's that can't display much more than a dvd properly still saying they're going to get a PS3 because it's 1080p and that so it might be important as a sales thing. Maybe the XBox 360 will appeal to them again now!?

Read this and learn a bit.
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/reality.html
Some of you already know I can see. Others can learn still. I think.. lol

Very good article. I didn't know that.

Wow, that was really informative. I need to get a new TV soon and it makes me wonder if I should stick with SDTV, especially since I don't plan to get digital cable or back a possible betamax format.

Exactly why you should get a cablecard connection when possible. That way the cheapy hd cablebox doesn't do the 720p -> 1080i conversion.

If you are getting a tv specifically because it's 1080p, and you're not hooking it to a PC, you're wasting your money. Cable and satellite can hardly fit 1080i through the pipe. Watch some NFL on CBS and just look at all that fantastic aliasing. Why? They highly compress it. 1080p? That's double the data roughly. The cable pipe is the same size, so do you really think they're going to yank an HD channel to divert the bandwidth for a 1080p picture instead of a 1080i picture? Don't hold your breath.

1080p is beautiful, but you better make absolutely sure that your source is providing it. Your broadcast tv/cable/satellite won't be for many years.

Exactly. 1080p is a joke and component video at 1080i looks beautiful, when it's not compressed like crazy.

I hate this industry and it's ignorant, uniformed mass consumers. People only want to hear the buzzwords like plasma (which sucks) with it's incorrect overbright colors and terrible black levels. DLP with it's bulbs that need to be replaced, but no one seems to mind spending 200 bucks a pop. And LCD which is OK but expensive and very heavy at larger sizes.

www.thedvdwars.com

The truth is out there

And LCD which is ... very heavy at larger sizes.
Isn't everything? LCD is heavy compared to what? CRT?

Lazarus98, I want to sincerely thank you for linking to that article. I spent the following 2 hours reading as much as I could on that site, learning more about HDTV technology in that time than I have in the past 2 years. Kudos!

Mike

Perhaps he meant LCD projectors, which are typically a lot heavier than DLP ones.

Actually plasmas and LCD's are both pretty heavy. I can stand the people who put these things on the wall centered at 6 feet high.

Everyone wants to impress the relatives when they come over with thier plasma TV. My 65 inch CRT is as big as a Subaru and cost twice as much and thats the way I like it. Luckily I cought one of the last ones made with an HDMI. No 1080p but that's OK because it doesnt exist anyways.

www.thedvdwars.com

The truth is out there

He must be, because the lightness of LCD flat-panels have always been a strong point in their favor. I am sure a 60" LCD is heavy, but I am pretty sure you don't need a forklift like some of the other, older technologies out there.

Didn't I announce this a couple weeks ago?

the only significance of this is that now BD/PS3/sony zealots have one less point to argue.

like its going to stop them...

Indeed...Those people would argue with a road sign.

Let's not call them names, people. As biased as they appear to be, they were smart enough to know how to post on a forum in betanews...

...I know of hundreds of people who couldn't do that if I showed them TWICE. :D

I know of hundreds of people who couldn't do that if I showed them TWICE.
How many grandparents do you have ?!?!?

"like its going to stop them..."

That's true, I expect Mark Gillespie to pop in any moment now and call this a bolt-on or say it's useless for some reason or other. Mere facts aren't enough to stop a fanboy.

1080i and 1080p are no different. 1080p is the buzzword this holiday season, it's the only reason why the firmware upgrade is being implemented.

So idiots like DaveBG and Mark, can't say the 360 doesnt support 1080p. It means nothing, unless it's your only argument for spouting trash about Blo-Ray.

The average consumer is so stupid and uninformed, they have blue s***s from Best Buy designing their home theaters.

Hollywood is god, because I say so.

www.thedvdwars.com

The truth is out there

agreed 100%.

how stupid and uninformed can you have to be if you use kids from bestbuy for info source.

The site is true for the US. It isn't so true for Europe and Britain in particular.
Blueray was the first to launch here, so it has the market lead by default.

It could turn into continent specific decisions as to which format people choose to support.

You do know the difference between interlacing and progessive scan? You do also understand the limitation of interlacjing?

There is a difference between 1080i and 1080p for fast moving scenes.

Hopefully, we can have an intelligent response (other than this one) and not strictly name-calling, because I had this understanding as well. I used to have a 17" CRT that could reach 1280X1024 only when interlaced, but the thing "rolled" visibly all the time, so 1024X768 was the only safe resolution. Now, interlaced Refresh rates on a PC monitor is the same concept here, is it not? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing-- which method does 1080i use to deinterlace, if any?)

I mean guys, I hate to sound as if I'm agreeing with Mark, but it looks to me like 1080i does indeed have disadvantages next to 1080p. Can someone help me out here? Even I'm confused now...

First, you have to separate all the different formats.

From a post above, it seems broadcast really can't support 1080P. Consoles and the new High Def media can.

1080P will have its advantages if you use it on a 1080P TV. And the high def media formats probably make the best use of it.

Its not really pratical for gaming. Resources in consoles are limited. Therefore, to get 1080P with a good framerate, you are likely giving something else up. In this gen, I hardly expect we'll see many 1080P games. And of those that we do, something will be sacrificed somewhere.

Mark is right, but his argument is still more of a marketing thing, even though it has some truth behind it. 1080p is in a way higher resolution than 1080i. For games it can make a difference. The difference in i and p is that in 1/60th of a second you will see only 540 actual lines of resolution in interlaced mode, every other line is blank, where as in progressive mode you will see all 1080 lines every 1/60th of a second. So you will get 60 full frames every second. With interlacing you see 60 half frames every second. If you play the 1080i on a 1080p monitor (which I have done on my 24" dell widescreen that is 1920x1200) you will notice the interlace very clearly.

Most people who bought HDTVs up until recently, either got 720p or 1080i capable displays. So it didn't matter. But over this year 1080p became the new buzzword and MSFT can't be left in the dust. The graphics processors in both consoles have about the same capability, so they should both be able to display 1080p just fine if Sony claims theirs can.

So the advantage of having 1080p in video is that you have the highest available resolution in every frame. In the end, most people will yet to be affected by this update, since they don't have displays capable of displaying it. And it is more of a marketing thing, they can't let Sony show them up.

Broadcast in the US can't support 1080P, but don't make the assumption the rest of the world is stuck with the same constraints, as many countries have 1080P broascast capable digital tv systems.

To you, it may not be different. But to the rest of the world, it is. 1080P looks freaking awesome compare to 1080i. That's why Microsoft is following Sony's lead, 'cause Sony knows best. Microsoft can only copy, not lead.

Care to comment as to which countries? I noticed that you carefully chose the word "capable"... are any programs actually being broadcast at 1080p around the world?

I believe he made the assumption because it's a safe one to make.

According to the EBU (that's the European Broadcasting Union... not American):

A new high-definition progressive scan format for picture creation is currently being developed to operate at 1080p at 50 or 60 frames per second.

Even though various television networks in the world broadcast HDTV programming in 1080i and 720p, no 1080p broadcasting actually exists at this time.

You have never seen 1080p! Only 1080p that is that converted to 1080i, don't you read a thing about HDTV formats?

Anyone can be convinced one 1080i signal is better than another by adjusting the color and contrast, Best Buy does it all the time.

You got it kid..the p is better.. hey ev er ee body you can't argue facts only opions and if you have money "lots" you will notice the difference. Have your mom buy you some truly nice stuff and you will see the difference.. you will...

Sweet, if only I had the money to purchase a 60" plazma tv that that supports 1080p

That would look horribly stretched.

Software (aka firmware) update, eh? So what was that thing about it not "physically" being able to support 1080p?

Anyway, this really means little to me, since I really don't need or require more than 720p myself--as long as the games are great, 720p works for me. (in fact, I don't even have a HD TV yet...well, yeah, that 15" LCD 720p TV but it's only 15")

15" ??? ..... you get one dead pixel and half the screen blacks out ...

J/K .... lol

Funnily enough 15" PC LCDs have about the same resolution (or better) as the original 42" plasmas did. :P

Then you walk in on a 1080P HD movie playing on a 1080P HD TV. And you starts caring again.

Any comments from the Sony / Blu-Ray zombies?

Mark? DaveBG?

Didn't think so.

that's it...no more arguing. Now it's all about the games...and maybe who's got better heat management :)

Ahaha well if all else fails, you can always cook sausages!

www.ps3grill.com

Bloody hell m8, that's FAT FREE sausages.

Don't forget you can cook eggs with your Xbox 360.
http://ps3.qj.net/-Xbox-...thermen/pg/49/aid/71177