Printable View
EDTV usually means 480p-576p. These definitions are kind of arbitrary, but I remember older plasma sets (and perhaps also new but cheap ones) with XGA as their native resolution, and they were always marketed as HDTV sets. In any case I highly doubt 720p is significantly more taxing than XGA.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegenie
720p HD is not just the resolution it's an indication that you're viewing video content at 60 frames per second. That is extremely taxing on hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
EDTV would be any TV resolution between SDTV (480i) and HDTV (720p higher)
XGA or Extended Graphics Array is just a term to describe screen resolution at 1024 by 768, it has nothing to do with CPU processing power, video codec, frame rate, and therefore is not something to used as a benchmark since your CPU speed would have no affect on your ability to display something at XGA. Every computer since the 1990s were capable of XGA resolution. 720p is referencing HD video or content in real time 60 FPS.
XGA is 60hz too (even more if you set the monitor higher). How is that any different?Quote:
720p HD is not just the resolution it's an indication that you're viewing video content at 60 frames per second. That is extremely taxing on hardware.
720p60 is not taxing at all. it is still less taxing than 1080i60..
because you're just talking about a monitor in XGA at 60Hz on a Pentium II assuming it can perform HD because it's XGA res make up part of the HD 720p resolution when I'm telling you that there is more required to achieve 720p/1080p since we are talking about the Xbox's ability to barely handle 1080i. it will require higher processing power because you are working with real time motion processing at an HD spec resolution (1280x720 - 1920x1080) and at frame rate of 60 per second.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
this also applies to video playback, if you have a video file that's encoded at 1280x720p at 60, it will tax the hell out of a Pentium II with a XGA video graphics adapter.
My guess is that you never attempted to playback a HD video on your Pentium II PC or try to run a game on it at a HD resolution and see if you can get 60 frames off of it.
I know from experience that your system will choke, I have experimented with this in the past and it was quite a learning experience for me on video and resolution.
they are all taxing if you're talking about HD on Pentium II PCs with video card supporting only XGA res, or HD on original XBOX 1 hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by evildragon
as noted ITT already XBOX can barely handle 1080i
My Xbox seems to be able to play at 720p just fine: Soul Calibur 2 is fantastic, though the machine does take a slight speed knock when I'm using the UnleashX dashboard. At 1080i, the slowdown is totally apparent.
Nonsense. Shitloads of PS3 and 360 games don't run at 60FPS; that doesn't make them not HD, or not 720p. A TV/monitor doesn't know the difference with framerate.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegenie
Decoding video or running a game or software at full screen in XGA should be approximately as difficult as doing so in 720p.
I think you guys are missing something - "HD" is a moving target, and XGA is "HD" in terms of picture quality.
Don't forget, SD was once referred to as "high-definition" when it was an upgrade to the mechanical television of the time. In 20 years when everyone has 4Kx4K displays all over the place, 1080p will no longer be considered "high-definition".
The only practical difference between XGA and 720p is the fact that XGA is not 16:9 (well, that and the fact that XGA has 48 more lines than 720p). Also, some cheap plasmas apparently have non-square pixels and so scaling 1280x720 to 1024x768 could still be considered HD and 16:9 in such a situation.
Only high-end gaming PCs can actually deliver true 60FPS in real-time animated motion.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
But this is a Red Herron. Both PS3 and Xbox are capable of running doing other HD content than just real-time 3D motion. They both support either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback which will playback video at 720p (60FPS), 1080i (30FPS), 1080p (60FPS). They are more close to being HD capable devices than what you're defending as being an HD device when it isn't. Weren't we talking about XBOX 1 struggle with 1080i and old Pentium II PCs that you claim are HD capable because of XGA video card res which they are not so why bring a red herron to the discussion?
it would not be approximately as difficult. 720p would be more taxing than XGA since it's resolution is higher. And if you're working with a video card that maxes at XGA, chances are your system cannot even handle HD period.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
Actually, I'm not. I'm saying that you are getting your terms mixed up. And you're attaching other specifics to the resolution itself. XGA is pretty close to 720p (even more so when the refresh of XGA is set higher than 60hz). It's all about pixel bandwidth. HD just specifies a resolution at a specific refresh rate. HD video (blu-ray) is something entirely different. And an HD game can mean anything (as long as it runs at one of the HD resolutions, but even then. The term is pretty fast and loose).Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegenie
What motion processing? Are you talking about some specific function of newer console graphic cards or Blu-ray video itself? There's nothing about 'real time motion processing' that's directly relative to HD being a resolution.Quote:
it will require higher processing power because you are working with real time motion processing at an HD spec resolution (1280x720 - 1920x1080) and at frame rate of 60 per second.
HD or resolutions of that type, for video.. no (for a bunch of reasons). But games. Of course I have. I ran 2D and 3D games at 1024x768 on PII BITD.Quote:
My guess is that you never attempted to playback a HD video on your Pentium II PC or try to run a game on it at a HD resolution and see if you can get 60 frames off of it.
I understand some of your points. It's just that you're having problems separating or associating some things based on resolution, or rather what HD term means. First and foremost, it's just a specification for a resolution. And resolutions that the PC has been doing (and exceeding) for years. But I think this is just getting pointless. What was the original argument anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
I believe it was this. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by The Jackal
the motion processing refers to the video or real-time animation. If that video or game is encoded or developed from a HD res (i.e. 720p or higher) it will require intensive processing power in order to get it to properly playback. By properly I'm saying the framerate will need to playback as intended by the creator. In most cases this in no problem with today with current computers, but you are arguing a old Pentium II with XGA res video card being capable, and that's simply not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
That's not HD resolution. HD is either 1280x720 or 1920x1080 or higherQuote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
Like someone else said, that res probably was considered HD back in the day, like how the Genesis has HD res on it's case. But those are not HD resolutions today.
Those would be classified as Enhanced Defintiion today.
I am fully aware of what HD means.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
:|Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
Exactly. It has nothing to do with "HD". HD is nothing more than a strict definition of video resolution and refresh rate. Nothing more. What you are talking about is something else. Like I stated before, you have a problem separating certain aspects/function/applications from what the term HD is. Blu-ray for instance. It uses HD resolution, but HD does not specify anything to do with Blu-ray. Shit, you could have Intel Video1 codec at HD res, and that would be HD video (it just means video running at HD res). You can do the same with the original MPEG spec at HD resolutions (not mpeg2 or mpeg4).Quote:
the motion processing refers to the video or real-time animation.
Relative to what??? We're talking about XGA 1024x768 here, not some 640x480 res. And it's not any different than a PC res of the same bandwidth though. I'm beginning to think you don't understand how resolution and pixel bandwidth works. 1024x768 is the same bandwidth of 1092x720. Is 1092x720 really THAT far off from 1280x720? Are you trying to tell me a PC that could handle 1092x720 equiv frame buffer couldn't handle a mere 188 more pixels per line in a frame buffer??? That it's going to choke and die right after that point?Quote:
If that video or game is encoded or developed from a HD res (i.e. 720p or higher) it will require intensive processing power in order to get it to properly playback.
And you're completely missing the point. XGA 1024x768@60hz is pretty damn close to HD. Who cares if it's slightly less res.Quote:
That's not HD resolution. HD is either 1280x720 or 1920x1080 or higher
Who's talking about BITD. I'm talking about now. It's just slightly lower. And higher than what "HD" game consoles are putting out for games nowadays (more so on the PS3, which are lower than XGA).Quote:
Like someone else said, that res probably was considered HD back in the day, like how the Genesis has HD res on it's case. But those are not HD resolutions today.
Ok, that's just bullshit. 1024x768 is damn near close to 1280x720. 480p is 'ED'. Anything between greater than 480p and less than 720p is considered sub-HD (but an emphasis on HD still). The difference between 1280 and 1024 is pretty unnoticeable, and 768 is greater vertical resolution than 720. The given rule is that vertical resolution is always more important that horizontal resolutions . Hell a lot of early HD equipment cheated on the horizontal res because of this very fact. Just like a lot of DVD players with component output didn't really output a true 13.5mhz signal on Green component like the Mpeg2 spec allows for. In case you don't know what that means, it's the horizontal resolution. The vertical resolution is still 480 lines.Quote:
Those would be classified as Enhanced Defintiion today.
Do we still need to continue this debate?
Um, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that in fact XGA is equivalent to HD in terms of general picture quality - there is *nothing* that says that HD has to be 16:9, it's just general practice. XGA does 768 lines and so qualifies for the HD moniker from a technical perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegenie
Now if you want to start talking marketing, then I'll agree - XGA is not HD in marketing terms, simply because they don't sell it as such. But who gives a damn about marketing terms on a tech forum?