PS3 & Xbox 360 (anyone playing in 480i?)

[gamevet]

The current Consoles are supposed to be competing with the PC... this doesn't bode well for their attempt. That's great that you're ok with substandard performance... some aren't.


What... oh I get it. I could take a turd, put a 360 logo on it and you'd pay me $300+ for it and love it. Some people question what they're being sold... I'm one of them.

I wouldn't expect a PC with a GeForce 9800 GTX to display on a 480i television. The consoles have to provide a scale for the lowest common denominator.

I wonder why anyone would buy a PS3 or 360 and then dummy it down to play on a crappy 480i CRT? It's like someone buying a GeForce GTX 480, and then connecting it to a 1280 x 1084 CRT.

[OldSchool]

I wouldn't expect a PC with a GeForce 9800 GTX to display on a 480i television. The consoles have to provide a scale for the lowest common denominator.

I wonder why anyone would buy a PS3 or 360 and then dummy it down to play on a crappy 480i CRT? It's like someone buying a GeForce GTX 480, and then connecting it to a 1280 x 1084 CRT.

I'm guessing you like sitting 100' away from a 2000" screen.


Because it looks badass on a 27" screen from 4' away.


That may be the case... wonder why they can't output in native 'higher' resolutions though. That's weak.

[gamevet]

Actually, I sit about 8' away from my 52" LCD. The 5.1 DTS surround doesn't hurt either.


It doesn't even look badass in 480p on my 32" (4:3) HD CRT. Yeah, I'm including the old Xbox as well.


Wipeout HD looks very nice in 1080P, as does Street Fighter II HD.

[GohanX]

I wonder why anyone would buy a PS3 or 360 and then dummy it down to play on a crappy 480i CRT? It's like someone buying a GeForce GTX 480, and then connecting it to a 1280 x 1084 CRT.

For me, it's about priority. What would I rather have look like crap, my old consoles or new? The HD consoles still look good on my SDTV, while the old consoles look like crap on an HDTV. I'd rather my SNES, Genesis, and Neo Geo look stunning than have my 360 run at a higher resolution.

If I ever get around to moving into a new house, I plan on putting a HDTV with the newer systems in the living room, and my CRT with the old systems in another room so I can play each on their optimal screens. I just don't have room for that now.

[OldSchool]

For me, it's about priority. What would I rather have look like crap, my old consoles or new? The HD consoles still look good on my SDTV, while the old consoles look like crap on an HDTV. I'd rather my SNES, Genesis, and Neo Geo look stunning than have my 360 run at a higher resolution.

If I ever get around to moving into a new house, I plan on putting a HDTV with the newer systems in the living room, and my CRT with the old systems in another room so I can play each on their optimal screens. I just don't have room for that now.

See... this is what I'm worred about. You hit the nail on the head, Gohan
I'm worried that the minute I buy a new "HD lalalalalal blow me" tv, my Cartridge based Consoles are going to look crappy. I don't want that.

At the same time, I detest big screens... and widescreens make me want to puke. To all the gamers in the world who think they're "kickin ass" with a big widescreen, I laugh... because I don't want to have to sit far away A, and I don't want to have to scan from left to right with my eyes B.

But I digress... the world has already made up it's mind... widescreen is in and 4:3 is out.

Actually, I sit about 8' away from my 52" LCD. The 5.1 DTS surround doesn't hurt either.
It doesn't even look badass in 480p on my 32" (4:3) HD CRT. Yeah, I'm including the old Xbox as well.

Wipeout HD looks very nice in 1080P, as does Street Fighter II HD.

480P is hardly an improvement in resolution size compared to i.


I guess I'm in the camp of gamers who prefer their Cartridge based systems to have the authentic Interlaced look. You can't fake the funk from what I've read.



Puke

I'm a Stereo Man... all the "surround" BS is for the birds unless I'm at a movie theatre. If I had a house big enough, and had a room designed to properly emulate a Theatre, then I'd take a look at that... and I still wouldn't play games on it.

Stereo is and will always be where Sound is at.
Music PROD is still in Stereo for a reason...

There are many, many tricks to be had in Stereo.





So... 8 to 1 eh... hahaha. I guess everyone hates the thought that their Console is working harder in higher resolutions... lol. I'm pretty much positive that the Hardware is definitely working harder.

Damn... (duh). Why is it that 'top' PCs (ones doing resolutions of 1600x1200/etc) have to have special attention paid to their cooling systems? It's not just because of the big power supplies needed to run those Vid Cards... think about it, people.


Also... where are all of the "programmer/hardware" guys on the board? I'm surprised y'all haven't chimed in yet. So far, only kool kitty. Tomaitheous?

[Guntz]

Yet again, I urge anyone looking into the matter of vintage on HDTV... Try the consoles out on a new Panasonic Viera Plasma. You might be surprised! (Unless you like smoothing, yuck)

[sheath]

I'll keep that in mind when my RPTV eventually dies. I noticed an LG TV actually filtered out the line noise from composite signals recently. I've always liked Panasonic though. I imagine I'm going to have to bring my Nomad to the store while I'm shopping just to be safe though.

[GohanX]

Yet again, I urge anyone looking into the matter of vintage on HDTV... Try the consoles out on a new Panasonic Viera Plasma. You might be surprised! (Unless you like smoothing, yuck)

Actually, when I get the room for the HDTV that is probably exactly what I am going to get! High five!

[OldSchool]

I don't think so. In general, both consoles will simply render the games at a fixed resolution internally, and then scale to whatever resolution the console has to output. It doesn't matter if it has to upscale or downscale, it's still doing the same work. One advantage of this is that you get some nice free anti-aliasing in lower resolutions.

Does scaling use zero power? If it uses more power to scale a resolution up from 480i than it does to simply render it at 480i and output it at 480i then I'm right... Higher Resolutions use more power = more heat is caused.

The 360's GPU supports upscaling natively. That means that it is a hardware supported feature that allows the system to output whatever resolution it needs to without a significant hit to system performance.

From what I have read the PS3 does not have such a feature, but it just might have gone unmentioned.

Either way, heat generated by the chips has more to do with power consumption, proper cooling and die size than anything else these days. That means that as the manufacturing process improves for a chip, the exact same "demanding process" will use less and less power, and the chip will generate comparatively no heat.

Makes enough sense... if upscaling uses more power than simply outputting the image at 480i, then more heat is cause and my point is proven.




1. Are we 100% sure that both the P3 & 360 are only capable of 480i and have to upscale from there onward to attain higher resolutions?

2. Does Upscaling use power?



If the answer to both of those is yes, then I'm 100% right that higher resolutions cause more heat because more power is necessary.

[gamevet]

For me, it's about priority. What would I rather have look like crap, my old consoles or new? The HD consoles still look good on my SDTV, while the old consoles look like crap on an HDTV. I'd rather my SNES, Genesis, and Neo Geo look stunning than have my 360 run at a higher resolution.

If I ever get around to moving into a new house, I plan on putting a HDTV with the newer systems in the living room, and my CRT with the old systems in another room so I can play each on their optimal screens. I just don't have room for that now.

I play the older consoles on the 4:3 set in my office. I use the large television in my livingroom for Blu-Ray movies, HD-DVD Movies, HD cable and HD gaming.

At the same time, I detest big screens... and widescreens make me want to puke. To all the gamers in the world who think they're "kickin ass" with a big widescreen, I laugh... because I don't want to have to sit far away A, and I don't want to have to scan from left to right with my eyes B.

But I digress... the world has already made up it's mind... widescreen is in and 4:3 is out.

Movies are filmed in widescreen, so if you like movies, it's the best way to watch them in your home.

480P is hardly an improvement in resolution size compared to i.

The picture is crisper and items with a reflective surface really stand out in 480p. PS3 games in 480p look like the old Xbox games with better frame-rates and character models.

Puke

I'm a Stereo Man... all the "surround" BS is for the birds unless I'm at a movie theatre. If I had a house big enough, and had a room designed to properly emulate a Theatre, then I'd take a look at that... and I still wouldn't play games on it.

Stereo is and will always be where Sound is at.
Music PROD is still in Stereo for a reason...

There are many, many tricks to be had in Stereo.
[/B]

If all I listened to on my stereo was music I'd agree. But, when I'm watching a movie or playing a game, I like to be immersed in the sounds surrounding me. A game like Dead Space or Forza 2 are perfect for this type of setup, because you can hear where the enemy is behind you, beside you and how fast they are coming towards you.

Does scaling use zero power? If it uses more power to scale a resolution up from 480i than it does to simply render it at 480i and output it at 480i then I'm right... Higher Resolutions use more power = more heat is caused.



Makes enough sense... if upscaling uses more power than simply outputting the image at 480i, then more heat is cause and my point is proven.

I doubt the difference is huge. I've notice that my PC and PS3 heat up quickly when I'm running a game that is CPU and GPU intensive. Crysis and Uncharted 2 cause both systems to heat up quickly.

1. Are we 100% sure that both the P3 & 360 are only capable of 480i and have to upscale from there onward to attain higher resolutions?

2. Does Upscaling use power?



If the answer to both of those is yes, then I'm 100% right that higher resolutions cause more heat because more power is necessary.

The PS3 had 2 native resolutions when it launched. It was either 480p or 720p and scaled from there. If you chose 480i, the PS3 would default to 480p mode and scale it to interlace from there. I don't know if later system updates changed that.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/5992.ars

It's suddenly becoming very important what native resolution your HDTV runs at. Some sets run at 720p natively, others at 1080i or 1080p, and some older sets don't support 720p at all. That was never an issue with the 360; Microsoft's system could upscale the image to fit your 1080i set. On the PS3 however, if your television doesn't support 720p as a resolution, you're going to have problems with games like Resistance: Fall of Man that default to 720p. You see, the PS3 can't upscale the image. What does it do? The system actually downscales the picture into 480p. So if you have a television that only does 480p and 1080i, like many older sets, many PS3 games may as well be standard definition.

As it turns out, gamers who own older HD sets that feature only 480i, 480p, and 1080i resolution input capabilities will have to settle for the display quality being downsized as the game boots in its 480p mode rather than upscaling the image from its more desirable 720p mode to the TV's 1080i. We tested this development on older HDTV sets with games designed for 720p but not 1080i—Resistance: Fall of Man, NHL 2K7, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07, and Need for Speed Carbon. Sure enough, the system downshifted all four titles to 480p rather than moving up to 1080i. This issue came up with either a digital HD video connection (using an HDMI cord) and an analog HD video connection (using component cables.)

[kool kitty89]

The funny thing to me though... is that even though the Consoles aren't capable of the same high resolutions as a powerful PC, they still get close to matching up with the quality of PC Graphics which supports what I've been thinking all along (that, Resolution of an Engine doesn't play as big a part in the quality of a games graphics as most people believe... it's the quality of the in game textures I think).

Actually, they're at lower resolutions than a lot of older games on 10 year old PCs could run at. (have you seen the max resolutions for games like Tomb Raider 2, DOS Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, let alone later games -though a lot of late 90s games did max out at 800x600 or 1024x768, a lot went beyond that, and even more went beyond that is you manually modified the resolution in the .conf file)

Anyway, it's a LOT more than texture resolution: it has tons to do with polygon count, shading, lighting effects, texture filtering, antialiasing, etc. (polygon count is way up there and again, antialiasing seems to be used inconsistantly)
Resolution is pretty significant though, especially in the lack of antialiasing: but even with good AA you still have heavy limits on a lower res screen. (the higher res it is the more it's like looking into a game and not at a screen, even with lower quality graphics -like running tomb raider 2 in 1440x900 using the 256 color software renderer )

One other really important factor with user selectable settings is that if you don't mind dropping the settings down (and indeed on an SDTV, resolution is limited anyway), you could have higher framerate and such. (resolution is still a huge factor in most cases for overall game speed) And again, 1360x768 would be so awesome to have as an option given over 90% of 720p LCD/Plasma sets have that native resolution. (that or 1365x768)

I remember in one of the threads I started here: where I'd claimed that 1280x1024 was HD to me... and PLENTY of people disputed me... bah hah hah... and now I find out their precious Consoles aren't even capable of doing native 1024x768.

That would certainly fall into the HD resolution realm: one could argue anything above 720p is HD (and that doesn't list a horizontal resolution -though 1280 may be assumed rather than 960x720), I'd stick 1024x768 in there too, maybe even 800x600 (still way above SD at least), there's a ton of resolutions supported by PC games though.

Interesting that you mention that. I'm using the Composite cables for my P3 and there aren't any Jaggies on my 27" CRT... the games look fantastic! They look like they're using at a minimum, 4xAA. There is one exception however and I'm in the middle of going to war with Gamestop and 2K over it. MLB 2K9 is a steaming pile of dogshit with Jaggies everywhere... can't tell you how pissed I am.

I hate dot crawl in composite and I'd take jaggies over that any day. (S-video eliminates that though, but still "filters" thinks a bit due to the limited color resolution, so that would eb a good option too if you like blur more than jaggies)

However, the absolute best picture I've ever seen on HD consoles is on good VGA monitors. Even on a 17" set, 720p or especially 1080p native games are very noticeable and amazing with the good contrast and fine detail of CRT monitors. (something you don't get even on most -if not all- CRT HDTVs)
The only problem is finding a good, big (at least 20") CRT monitor for such (local listings and maybe some used PC stores are the best options -the latter might not cater so much to that anymore), that and having the space for such, of course.
The other issue is most VGA monitors being 4:3 and I think HD consoles tend to only offer 16:9 for the HD resolutions (though it varies and I remember my friend's 360 running in 4:3 in 1080p a while back but now I'm not sure). You can fix the aspect ration by adjusting the monitor of course, but then you're stuck with a smaller screen. (which isn't so bad for a single player game on a 20-24" monitor, though it could be better -if you do any split screen play it gets a tad annoying with any more than 2 players)

And... in regard to your comment about games exhibiting Jaggies in lower resolutions... I don't get it. I asked Sony if I was "missing out" on ANY kinds of efx in 480i and they said no. I asked if there were any DX10 type efx/or other features that were only present in say 720P/1080P and they said no. I asked if FPS would be the 'exact' same in 1080P (for a game that supports it that is) as they are in 480i and they said yes.

What I meant was: if a game used no (or little) AA in ANY resolution, lower res modes would obviously have more jaggies, except since it's the console scaling from the game's native render res in most cases: AA at the lower (or higher) res modes would be totally dependent on the consoles scaling and not the game's settings specifically. (usually AA of some sort is always applied when scaling as otherwise you end up with nasty artifacts more than just jaggies: as it is I still see lots of Jaggies on all games at SDTV resolutions -then again, there's still jaggies to some extent with AA anyway, especially at lower resolutions as there's only so much you can do)

I don't have enough experience with HD consoles (probably less than 40 hours of play on them -SDTV and VGA monitors) to really comment on how many games seen to use AA and to what extent they do... I will say that what Jaggies there are don't bother me too much, though they are there... then again I can work my self to ignore the Jaggies in 320x240 (or 320x200) games. (the low-res artifacts on large textures are worse than jagged polygon edges IMO -not low res textures, but ugly jaggies/scrambled scaling type artifacts on textures, especially unfiltered textures)

Considering MLB 2K9 and it's jaggies are abhorrent on my 27" CRT, I can't even imagine how shitty it looks on say a 46" or bigger.

You mean on older big screen SDTVs?
For a 46" HD set it wouldn't matter so much as you'd be in 720p or 1080p, plus any game that's not at the TVs native res (ie any game not at 1080p on a 1080p set pretty much -again the 1360x768 issue) will have AA added by the TV itself, plus you can manage your own filtering/sharpness/edge enhancement and such on the TV itself. (I play 480p 16:9 original Xbox games on out 32" Sanyo LCD and they're fine: lots of jaggies but I don't really mind that much -I have it set to no filtering of any kind, edge enhancement always at zero -which is artifitial sharpness and sucks IMO- and sharpness at 100%, though some TVs merge sharpness and edge enhancement which makes it tougher -game mode sucks on the Sanyo though, way too dark if nothing else -they still look better on a good VGA monitor though and all Xbox games are 4:3 compatible, though most are 480p only -I think most are 640x480 but might be 720x480)


As for SD gaming in general: most of my friends using HD consoles either started on SDTVs (in many cases with composite video and no 16:9 support) or still use SDTVs for such (though not so much composite anymore), some going back and forth depending on the TV they're using. (back and forth from home to dorm, or with separated parents, etc)
One freind got his 360 near launch and played it mainly on a 30" early 90s trinitron (stereo and composite video) that was really looking terrible by then end (still worked when they retired it but the composite output was super smeary and the tint was a bit off -that or I didn't mess with the settigns enough the one time I used it) They replaced that with a new flat screen CRT trinitron last year (still SD): he was still using composite though until I connected component for him and set 16:9 too. (though he didn't end up liking that like I do, in spite of him having a 30" TV vs our ~27" set)

Not to go all meta, but that's pretty much the sole difference between a box that you plug into a TV - one that's virtually identical to other models sold worldwide, and a box that sits under your desk that could use any old hardware. I didn't buy an Xbox so I could futz around with screen resolutions and configuration screens, ha ha.

Huh? did you not read my comment about default settings for the average user???

Ie default settings would be the standard setup: exactly like they are now. Anyone who doesn't want to mess with them would just not go into advanced settings options. Just like fully mappable controls: great for anyone who wants the feature, but still have good defaults for those who don't ant to bother. (you can't do that on PC as controllers are non-standard, though for detail settings a lot of games have an "optimum" automatic setting option that analyzes your machine and sets things accordingly if you don't want to tweak it)

I wouldn't expect a PC with a GeForce 9800 GTX to display on a 480i television. The consoles have to provide a scale for the lowest common denominator.

Up to a few years ago at least (5 or 6 at least, maybe more recently), you very well could display PCs on SDTVs, and we did jut that for alot of stuff. (via composite initially and later S-video) and played a ton of games downscaled to 480i from our PC to the neighboring TV in our family room. It looked fine... though obviously not as good in some areas as 1024x768 on a good monitor. (played though a LOT of games like that, some back to the mid 90s and in some cases my dad playing on the PC monitor and usign the TV for my brother and I to watch, though for most cases we were all in front of the TV -at least after we got wireless controllers/keyboard/mouse) We did that with Myst, Return to Zork, Grim Fandango, Silent Hill 2, Silent Hill 3, and several others I don't recall off the top of my head.

I wonder why anyone would buy a PS3 or 360 and then dummy it down to play on a crappy 480i CRT? It's like someone buying a GeForce GTX 480, and then connecting it to a 1280 x 1084 CRT.

WTF??? A 1280x1084 CRT would be AWESOME! LCDs have come a long way, but I've yet to see one that can meet or exceed every quality of a good CRT monitor. (plus it can drop to lower resolutions and still not scale as it's pure analog, not blurry scaled screen at non-native resolutions like LCD as there's multiple resolutions, no fixed native res)
Of course, it's a bit hard to fine really big CRTs, but even 19 or 20" is awesome. (a shame CRT HDTVs didn't employ the sort of capabilities VGA monitors did -albeit most were geared towards 1080i and thus, like SDTVs, employed high persistence phosphor to reduce flicker -the dot pitch isn't nearly as fine as VGA monitors either, plus there's nowhere near the flexibility in resolutions available)

That said, a 1280x1084 CRT probably wouldn't be limited to that: the vertical resolution perhaps (which is sync limited), but not the horizontal res by any means: even our ~10 year old 17" Nokia supports 1920x1080p perfectly. (horizontal resolution is controlled by dot clock and NOT limited on any CRT by anything else -an SDTV could easily have 1920x480i displayed: though the dot pitch is far too low on SDTVs to really see that high res, not to mention the beam precision in some cases -you would have a lack of horizontal jaggies though -in that respect any resolution up to ~960 wide on an SDTV is probably significant). Dot pitch and beam pricision are FAR, FAR higher on good VGA CRT monitors, though still limiting to a point. (that point is beyond 1920 pixels across though as even on my 17" CRT I can still distinguish individual pixels and see Jaggies on games without AA)

Resolution is NOT a defining factor of newer games... they're still amazing at low res (albeit significantly better at their maximum native resolution -save for cases where games actually render at higher speed at lower res -not sure how many even offer that and I'd bet 720p and 1080p native modes would be far more common than 480p native).

You had PC games more than a decade ago that ran at similar or higher resolutions than most stuff on consoles now (and not THAT much lower than the max res on newer PC games, especially given the time gap) and at a point it really no longer matters. (it may be noticeable if you go higher, but not really significant: for any given screen size at least -and viewing distance)
There was a huge jump on PC games in the mid 90s: going from primarily 320x200 (same as it had mainly been since CGA -with some cases of 160x200 TGA, 160x100, 640x350 EGA or even 640x200 in some less common cases, but 320x200 in CGA, EGA amd VGA was by far the common resolution) up to the mid 90s when some 320x240, 640x480 and more variable VGA/SVGA resolutions started appearing ~1993/94, and soon after you had games jumping to 1440x900 or 1280x1084 max (former for Quake, Latter for Duke Nukem 3D iirc), and that was in 1996 for software rendered DOS games! (later games had a mix though, a lot of later games were 800x600 max then 1024x768, with other games continuing the high-res trend with similar peak stuff as Quake/Duke 3D -including Tomb Raider 2- though some games goign well into the 2000s with 1024x768 max -except bypassing that and manually defining the resolution in the game's .conf file -for some games)

Resolution is only 1 factor to be sure, and is most significant when there's no (or limited) AA. (or on really big screens and sitting close to them... except for HDTVs you're either going to get 1360/1365x768 or 1920x1080 monitors basically, or 1080i native for some CRTs -some also have 720p modes)
A 1920x1200 PC monitor really isn't going to do you that much more good than some lower res stuff. (especially depending on lag time and refresh rate as well as contrast and if games support that resolution and aspect ratio properly, video driver settings corresponding to that, if the graphics card can handle it, etc -and dropping to a lower res means scaling and detail loss, unlike good multi-sync CRT monitors)

[kool kitty89]

See... this is what I'm worred about. You hit the nail on the head, Gohan
I'm worried that the minute I buy a new "HD lalalalalal blow me" tv, my Cartridge based Consoles are going to look crappy. I don't want that.

That's not universally true: there's a big range of SD support on HDTVs, some with no noticeable lag, full (proper) 240p support, good composite and s-video decoding, support for 240p via component video, good deinterlacing for 480i, lots of control over filtering used, etc.
Older SD only LCDs seem to be great for that in spite of their age (a 5 year old Phillips has no noticeable lag, great deinterlacing, good scaling, good 240p support, etc). You also lose the gaps between lines in 240p or the "rolling" interlace effect on real SDTVs. (you could go either way there depending on preference)

The only issues would be A: lower res games on big screen=big pixels (I don't care either way though as the resolution is the same, the screen is just bigger, and a 28" CRT is actually pretty close to a 40" widescren set for 4:3 content)
The only real issue would be light gun games being rendered pretty much useless on LCD/plasma sets. (I'm not sure about NES as I thinkt he Zapper might use a simpler mechanism tied to timing anf the hit box rather than reading the CRT scan directly like later guns -I need to check that again, but I recall Duck hunt working on our LCD SDTV a couple years ago)

At the same time, I detest big screens... and widescreens make me want to puke. To all the gamers in the world who think they're "kickin ass" with a big widescreen, I laugh... because I don't want to have to sit far away A, and I don't want to have to scan from left to right with my eyes B.

I like widescreen gaming, you don't need huge screens though: a 32" set is fien if you're up close (3 or 4') to a good bit back (on the couch 6-8' away), though in the latter case, a 42-52" set would still be OK too.
I've been playing all games in widescreen that support it on our SDTV since we got it. (a fair amount of GC games, and even a few N64 games -proper anamorphic 16:9, not letterboxed fullscreen and all wii games)
For some split screen games, 4:3 works better though.
And that's on our 27" CRT SDTV, 17" LCD SDTV, and on our HDTV. (namely X-box games in 480p).

However, I detest playing games "stretched" to the native aspect ratio: if a game can't play at the native aspect, set it to letterbox or pillarbox the screen.

I also have played games on a lot of other aspect ratios, like 5:4, 3:2, 8:5, etc. (my laptop is 8:5) That's what you get with PC monitors: though the vast majority of games have been on 4:3 and to a lesser extent 16:9 displays. (for split screen games, 4:3 is almost always ideal -be it top/bottom 2p or 4 way split -even 16:9 is too narrow for proper side by side split, you'd need at least a 2:1 screen aspect for that)
For a TV, 16:9 is fine, though for a computer monitor: 4:3-8:5 is the good range (less than 4:3 is too tall/narrow -like 5:4- and wider is too wide IMO unless you watch a ton of widescreen TV/movie content on your PC)

480P is hardly an improvement in resolution size compared to i.

I disagree, it's very significant for several reasons: 1. there's no interlacing artifacts/issues and it can be displayed properly on a VGA monitor or HDTV (scaled for the latter -or the former if you include LCD VGA monitors), 2 you can go to 60 FPS rather than 30 (and full clean 60 FPS on good monitors, no phosphor induced motion blur like CRT TVs -even HD CRTs have that problem due to catering to 1080i).
Then you have issued tied to catering to higher res displays in general compared to SDTVs: namely limited dot pitch and beam pricision limitng horizontal res, so you *could* have higher horizontal res for 480p, though I think most consoles go for 720x480 or 640x480. (ther might be some support for stuff like 852x480 -full EDTV res- or close like 848x480 -which is actually a resolution option in the original Quake -it could eb any horizontal resolution too, just having the game use non-square pixels of some resolution to correspond to a certain screen aspect ratio -as it is nothing other than "real" HD tends to use square pixels -though some developers may treat close to square pixels as square -like 720x480)

There's a ton of variables, but 480p games look significantly better on VGA monitors or our HDTV than 480i vis component (not enough to make or break a game, but enough to make me want to use one method over another by a fair margin -much more so if you're not comparing component video but S-video, or especially composite -I HATE dot crawl and composite vidoe artifacts in general -the SNES2 and N64 are probably the best for stock composite video though -other than a few N64 games using higher horizontal resolution)

I guess I'm in the camp of gamers who prefer their Cartridge based systems to have the authentic Interlaced look. You can't fake the funk from what I've read.

Almost no cart based games (1 SNES game, 1 Genesis game -Sonic 2- and a few N64 games) use interlacing: almost all use 240p with the characteristic non-interlaced lines with small gaps between them. (most emulators even offer simulation of that)
Interlacing has no gaps and a characteristic rolling effect: play sonic 2 and carefully watch when the split screen section starts to see what I mean.

I'm a Stereo Man... all the "surround" BS is for the birds unless I'm at a movie theatre. If I had a house big enough, and had a room designed to properly emulate a Theatre, then I'd take a look at that... and I still wouldn't play games on it.

I like surround (it's been around in games since the mid 90s -even one or 2 SNES games supported 4 point surround), though it's not always that useful, it's cool when it is: be it for PCs or consoles. With headphones you're stuck with stereo though. (other than simulated surround which gets a bit odd on headphones -more so than on stereo speakers I think)
You don't need a big surround set-up either, you can get some really decent sound out of rather compact speakers. (in out family room, all of our speakers could fit in one hand other than the woofer -and maybe the center/mono speaker)
More than 5.1 surround diminishes rather quickly even in suitably large/acoustic rooms, and pretty much worthless in smaller rooms. (5.1 is great though, and again, can be done acceptably well with smaller speakers)

It really does benefit 3D games in particular (like movies), especially when used properly.

There are many, many tricks to be had in Stereo.

Including virtual surround. (again, not sure if it works well with headphones, bit it's surprisingly capable on speakers -even the built-in speakers on out ~6 year old Sanyo SDTV handle it rather well -granted older TVs, especially larger SDTVs have MUCH better built-in speaker than modern flat screens -with the possible exception of projection sets)

So... 8 to 1 eh... hahaha. I guess everyone hates the thought that their Console is working harder in higher resolutions... lol. I'm pretty much positive that the Hardware is definitely working harder.

I wish. THat would mean dropping res would mean better gameplay speed and such (including 480p), but again, most/all console games are NOT like PC games, or even N64 games or some last gen games for that matter (which DID render slower in special high-res modes -like Lucas Arts and soem Rare games on the N64 -some levels on Episode 1 racer get a bit too framey for my liking and I drop back to 320x480i mode -no 240p mode unfortunately).

I'm not even sure if many games support 720p rendering modes if they are 1080p native: it seems most common by FAR to render in one, fixed resolution and hardware scale for compatibility with SDTVs, HDTVs with limited resolution modes, or for upscaling support on 1080p sets that have weaker native upscaling.
So you might even have a game doing MORE work in 480i than 720p/1080p native (depending on the game -most 360 games are 720 native though) as it has to scale too, though that's not all that resource intensive and is most likely more of a non-issue. (but the framerate won't be any higher in 480i for sure, in fact it's practically limited to 30 fps due to interlacing -all you get is combing artifacts beyond that -480p can do the full framerate, but gains no speed advantage over higher res unfortunately -again I wish it was like PC games where not only resolution being rendered is sully variable, but other detail settings can be modified to the user's satisfaction)

Damn... (duh). Why is it that 'top' PCs (ones doing resolutions of 1600x1200/etc) have to have special attention paid to their cooling systems? It's not just because of the big power supplies needed to run those Vid Cards... think about it, people.

And even there, the higher res isn't worth much... the big stuff comes from max detail settings in the newest games and framerates possible. (the latter is obviously limited by monitor refresh rate) And that's not even like 480i/p or 720p even as the res is so high it's much less significant, especially on average sized PC monitors. (even on a 30" monitor it's not THAT much... 1920x1080 would be fine there... or less -1360x768, 1200x900, 1440x900, etc -depending on the aspect ratio- would all be fine) There's a point of really significant deminishing returns, and 1600x1200 is WAY past that, adn by the time you get to a screen big enough for it to really matter, you probably are goign to be sitting further away anyway, mitigatign that to some degree.

Also... where are all of the "programmer/hardware" guys on the board? I'm surprised y'all haven't chimed in yet. So far, only kool kitty. Tomaitheous? [/B]

We've done this before... several times, so that's a factor. (last time was with a UK member talking about RGB SCART on SDTVs and also issues about text not properly supported at SD resolutions: though I've never had that problem with the dozen or so PS3/36o games I've played, even in composite it's not THAT bad, and in component the text is fine on the TVs I've used)

However, I must point out again, that I'm more of an armchair tech guy: I've got a lot of general knowledge but not much experience at actual programming, let alone hardware engineering. (discussions with actual programmers and engineers goes a lot further and faster/more detailed than books and online reading does though, at least for a quick learner -and books/classes don't focus on old game/computer hardware/programming either )
Not that I won't get more into that, but more programming before any significant hardware stuff (beyond modding consoles or building a PC) almost certianly. (and at a point, you start goign into some really heavy electrical engineering stuff, which I'm not planning on going into career wise)

I have messed around a lot with varying AV stuff though, especially with TVs and monitors in terms of display and such. (that's not really super technical though, just general knowledge, though well above the average "dumb" consumer)

Also, as I recall, Gamevet was/is a technician of some sort too. (don't recall the specifics)

[OldSchool]

You've given me a lot to reply too, Mr. Kool. I will reply in depth in the coming days.


You neglected to answer whether or not the process of 'Upscaling' uses Power or not. What say you?

[gamevet]

You mean on older big screen SDTVs?
For a 46" HD set it wouldn't matter so much as you'd be in 720p or 1080p, plus any game that's not at the TVs native res (ie any game not at 1080p on a 1080p set pretty much -again the 1360x768 issue) will have AA added by the TV itself, plus you can manage your own filtering/sharpness/edge enhancement and such on the TV itself. (I play 480p 16:9 original Xbox games on out 32" Sanyo LCD and they're fine: lots of jaggies but I don't really mind that much -I have it set to no filtering of any kind, edge enhancement always at zero -which is artifitial sharpness and sucks IMO- and sharpness at 100%, though some TVs merge sharpness and edge enhancement which makes it tougher -game mode sucks on the Sanyo though, way too dark if nothing else -they still look better on a good VGA monitor though and all Xbox games are 4:3 compatible, though most are 480p only -I think most are 640x480 but might be 720x480)

Sanyo is the bottom of the barrel, when it comes to LCD. The scaling and color processing is horrible. Plus, you're talking about a $400 television, at most, so the amount of technology behind the system board probably is very low cost.

I use a 24" LG (1080p) LCD for my computer, and I also have a Dreamcast (VGA) and 360 (HDMI) hooked up to it. It's a pretty decent display, but the color range doesn't come close to the quality of my $2,000 Samsung 52" LCD in the livingroom. I was able to calibrate the Samsung with the user interface within the television menus, while I don't believe I could go quite as deep with the LG, without getting the service codes for the display.

Up to a few years ago at least (5 or 6 at least, maybe more recently), you very well could display PCs on SDTVs, and we did jut that for alot of stuff. (via composite initially and later S-video) and played a ton of games downscaled to 480i from our PC to the neighboring TV in our family room. It looked fine... though obviously not as good in some areas as 1024x768 on a good monitor. (played though a LOT of games like that, some back to the mid 90s and in some cases my dad playing on the PC monitor and usign the TV for my brother and I to watch, though for most cases we were all in front of the TV -at least after we got wireless controllers/keyboard/mouse) We did that with Myst, Return to Zork, Grim Fandango, Silent Hill 2, Silent Hill 3, and several others I don't recall off the top of my head.

I'm not talking about old videocards, like the GeForce 5200 that had S-Video outputs for SDTV. I'm saying that someone wouldn't buy an expensive card like the 9800 GTX to play games on a SDTV, especially since the card didn't support it. Comparing the scaling range of the 360 and PS3, to the whole catalog of video cards for the PC isn't even a comparison of apples to apples. The 360 and PS3 were designed around HD gaming displays and the fact that they are forced to support those low-end televisions, sort of cripples what they can do to support every range of television. What I was saying was: It would be stupid for someone to shell out the cash for a 9800 GTX and then hook it up to a low resolution display (even though you can't), since you could probably buy a $50 video card that would produce the same kind of performance at such a low resolution.
It would be equally stupid for someone to shell out the cash for a Blu-Ray player, only to turn around and hook it up to a SDTV; you wouldn't notice the benefits of the media compared to DVD.

WTF??? A 1280x1084 CRT would be AWESOME! LCDs have come a long way, but I've yet to see one that can meet or exceed every quality of a good CRT monitor. (plus it can drop to lower resolutions and still not scale as it's pure analog, not blurry scaled screen at non-native resolutions like LCD as there's multiple resolutions, no fixed native res)
Of course, it's a bit hard to fine really big CRTs, but even 19 or 20" is awesome. (a shame CRT HDTVs didn't employ the sort of capabilities VGA monitors did -albeit most were geared towards 1080i and thus, like SDTVs, employed high persistence phosphor to reduce flicker -the dot pitch isn't nearly as fine as VGA monitors either, plus there's nowhere near the flexibility in resolutions available)

I'm not talking about hi-res CRTs. I'm talking about a cheap television in the range of a 27" Sony Wega, that only supports S-video, Composite and Component inputs up to 480i. I retired my 17" IBM CRT ealier in the year and I have no regrets about doing it.

[OldSchool]

Well, I met a friend last night (he's a programmer) for some beers at a local Sherlocks and he broke it down for me. I was half right...

If a Video Card/CPU have to render at high resolutions, that will use more power which will in turn produce more heat. Rendering an engine at 800x600 is going to use less power than 1024x768 and onward.

Now... if it's true that the P3 & 360 'ONLY' render at 480P and simply upscale (or downscale in my case... down to 480i), then they're most likely not using more power which means they're probably not generating more heat.

My buddy said it depends though... if the video card inside the P3 & 360 is doing the upscaling, there might be some extra power usage during that process, but he also said that most likely, there's a seperate processor on board specifically for upscaling and that's it not that intensive an operation.

So, a card capable of Variable Rendering is going to use more juice and thusly cause more heat at higher resolutions, and a card that renders at a native resolution and upscales to attain higher resolutions is going to use hardly any extra power which means hardly any extra heat generated if any.


For $350, I'm really proud of my purchase. This is the cheapest, most effective Gaming PC I've ever had (the P3). I'm going to refrain from calling it a 'wanna be' PC because it packs a lot of power for a very small cost... and it's very, very user friendly.