Samsung 67' DLP 1080p model # HL-S6767W
This thing is sick! I got it for only $2,500 too, when it can sell for $3,500 usually. Native 1080p Woot! Sorry for bragging, im just very happy as I have been saving for this for a long time. FTW!
Woot! Finally got my insane TV!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="DBone420"]Congrats dude!Samsung 67' DLP 1080p model # HL-S6767W
This thing is sick! I got it for only $2,500 too, when it can sell for $3,500 usually. Native 1080p Woot! Sorry for bragging, im just very happy as I have been saving for this for a long time. FTW!
cspiffo
Yes congrats
Congrats. How far away from that thing are you sitting?
Do you have anything to watch HD format movies or cable on? The Discovery Channel HD is amazing.
The Discovery Channel HD is amazing.
jdknight21
Amen brotha!
Shows us some pics dude.
With TV that size, you better be sitting at the right distance away. Bigger is not necessarily better if the distance to size proportion isn't right. At 1.5 meters away from the TV, i would rather have a 40" than 67". Besides, i don't think that the Xbox 360's 720p would look as good on a 60" TV unless you are stiing far away.
jhcho2
not entirely true. i have a 56 inch jvc hd-ila 1080p and when i play my 360 i sit around 2 to 3 feet away and it looks awsome
not entirely true. i have a 56 inch jvc hd-ila 1080p and when i play my 360 i sit around 2 to 3 feet away and it looks awsomeebkboy
have you tried other sizes at that distance?
bigger screen size means you have bloated pixels. if a 50" and 60" can both have 1080p, logic tells you that the 60" one will be bloated up. But since the Xbox is not capable of 1080p, let's just look at 720p instead. A 32", 40", 50" and 60" all have 720p resolution. So what does that mean?. One pixel of the 60" one has to be much bigger than one pixel of the 32" one. Technically speaking, smaller pixels look better. The trick is sizing up the TV but not until the pixels become noticeable. Maybe 32" is too small. 40" may be just right. 50" makes the pixels look apparent. 60" makes the pixels look annoying. However, this is only the case when you sit too near. When the pixels become too obvious, you can compensate it by sitting farther away. And that was what i meant.
[QUOTE="ebkboy"]not entirely true. i have a 56 inch jvc hd-ila 1080p and when i play my 360 i sit around 2 to 3 feet away and it looks awsomejhcho2
have you tried other sizes at that distance?
bigger screen size means you have bloated pixels. if a 50" and 60" can both have 1080p, logic tells you that the 60" one will be bloated up. But since the Xbox is not capable of 1080p, let's just look at 720p instead. A 32", 40", 50" and 60" all have 720p resolution. So what does that mean?. One pixel of the 60" one has to be much bigger than one pixel of the 32" one. Technically speaking, smaller pixels look better. The trick is sizing up the TV but not until the pixels become noticeable. Maybe 32" is too small. 40" may be just right. 50" makes the pixels look apparent. 60" makes the pixels look annoying. However, this is only the case when you sit too near. When the pixels become too obvious, you can compensate it by sitting farther away. And that was what i meant.
Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!
[QUOTE="jhcho2"][QUOTE="ebkboy"]not entirely true. i have a 56 inch jvc hd-ila 1080p and when i play my 360 i sit around 2 to 3 feet away and it looks awsomecspiffo
have you tried other sizes at that distance?
bigger screen size means you have bloated pixels. if a 50" and 60" can both have 1080p, logic tells you that the 60" one will be bloated up. But since the Xbox is not capable of 1080p, let's just look at 720p instead. A 32", 40", 50" and 60" all have 720p resolution. So what does that mean?. One pixel of the 60" one has to be much bigger than one pixel of the 32" one. Technically speaking, smaller pixels look better. The trick is sizing up the TV but not until the pixels become noticeable. Maybe 32" is too small. 40" may be just right. 50" makes the pixels look apparent. 60" makes the pixels look annoying. However, this is only the case when you sit too near. When the pixels become too obvious, you can compensate it by sitting farther away. And that was what i meant.
Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!
Yea i know the Xbox360 is now 1080p capible with the patch but when will they start making games the support it? so far iv only seen 1080i games beying made.
[QUOTE="cspiffo"][QUOTE="jhcho2"][QUOTE="ebkboy"]not entirely true. i have a 56 inch jvc hd-ila 1080p and when i play my 360 i sit around 2 to 3 feet away and it looks awsomehofuldig
have you tried other sizes at that distance?
bigger screen size means you have bloated pixels. if a 50" and 60" can both have 1080p, logic tells you that the 60" one will be bloated up. But since the Xbox is not capable of 1080p, let's just look at 720p instead. A 32", 40", 50" and 60" all have 720p resolution. So what does that mean?. One pixel of the 60" one has to be much bigger than one pixel of the 32" one. Technically speaking, smaller pixels look better. The trick is sizing up the TV but not until the pixels become noticeable. Maybe 32" is too small. 40" may be just right. 50" makes the pixels look apparent. 60" makes the pixels look annoying. However, this is only the case when you sit too near. When the pixels become too obvious, you can compensate it by sitting farther away. And that was what i meant.
Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!
Yea i know the Xbox360 is now 1080p capible with the patch but when will they start making games the support it? so far iv only seen 1080i games beying made.
lost planet
Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!cspiffo
You are missing the point completely. The term 'good' is better represented in reference to something else. If you tried only one TV size at a particular distance, the term 'good' is unsubstantial. How do you know if it is really good without making any comparisons? How do you know that it can't possibly be better? Besides, the 360 games are currently still in 720p. Your 1080p HDTV will not make the games 1080p if the source itself is still 720p. That's a lot of scaling up for a 60" TV. And the pixels are not all that invisible as you claim. I have tried displaying 480p on my HDTV before and the pixels are very noticeable in comparison to 720p. This shows that 300 lines makes a lot of difference. The same would apply for a native 1080 TV to be scaled down to 720.
[QUOTE="cspiffo"]Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!jhcho2
You are missing the point completely. The term 'good' is better represented in reference to something else. If you tried only one TV size at a particular distance, the term 'good' is unsubstantial. How do you know if it is really good without making any comparisons? How do you know that it can't possibly be better? Besides, the 360 games are currently still in 720p. Your 1080p HDTV will not make the games 1080p if the source itself is still 720p. That's a lot of scaling up for a 60" TV. And the pixels are not all that invisible as you claim. I have tried displaying 480p on my HDTV before and the pixels are very noticeable in comparison to 720p. This shows that 300 lines makes a lot of difference. The same would apply for a native 1080 TV to be scaled down to 720.
Everything on the 360 is 1080p! What do you suggest a 1080p game is. The 360 can scale to 1080p so the TV won't have to, even original XBOX games. Sega is releasing a tennis game that renders at 1080p, but what does this mean? You are talking about the texture resolution and not the rendering resolution. texture resolution is far lower than even 720p for these games. You cannot compare a 480p image running on a 720p display to a 480p image running on a 480p display. When the screens native res. is not a 1:1 match to the source the image will look worse on that type of display. Ex: I have a 32" SDTV. Looks really good for a SDTV. I can sit 2-3 ft away and not see any, as you call them, pixels. If I am watching SD content on my 720p HDTV the image looks HORRIBLE compared to the SDTV. How do you suggest anyone try diff. TV sizes in their home. Last I checked, you couldn't just walk into a best buy and say, "I'd like a free trial of that TV over their. I'll be back next week to try the next size (up or down)". It's not practical. Most people are happier with larger tv, regardless of where they sit in their room!
[QUOTE="jhcho2"][QUOTE="cspiffo"]Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!cspiffo
You are missing the point completely. The term 'good' is better represented in reference to something else. If you tried only one TV size at a particular distance, the term 'good' is unsubstantial. How do you know if it is really good without making any comparisons? How do you know that it can't possibly be better? Besides, the 360 games are currently still in 720p. Your 1080p HDTV will not make the games 1080p if the source itself is still 720p. That's a lot of scaling up for a 60" TV. And the pixels are not all that invisible as you claim. I have tried displaying 480p on my HDTV before and the pixels are very noticeable in comparison to 720p. This shows that 300 lines makes a lot of difference. The same would apply for a native 1080 TV to be scaled down to 720.
Everything on the 360 is 1080p! What do you suggest a 1080p game is. The 360 can scale to 1080p so the TV won't have to, even original XBOX games. Sega is releasing a tennis game that renders at 1080p, but what does this mean? You are talking about the texture resolution and not the rendering resolution. texture resolution is far lower than even 720p for these games. You cannot compare a 480p image running on a 720p display to a 480p image running on a 480p display. When the screens native res. is not a 1:1 match to the source the image will look worse on that type of display. Ex: I have a 32" SDTV. Looks really good for a SDTV. I can sit 2-3 ft away and not see any, as you call them, pixels. If I am watching SD content on my 720p HDTV the image looks HORRIBLE compared to the SDTV. How do you suggest anyone try diff. TV sizes in their home. Last I checked, you couldn't just walk into a best buy and say, "I'd like a free trial of that TV over their. I'll be back next week to try the next size (up or down)". It's not practical. Most people are happier with larger tv, regardless of where they sit in their room!
Man if when watching sd on your hdtv it looks horrible then id say you have a crap hdtv[QUOTE="cspiffo"][QUOTE="jhcho2"][QUOTE="cspiffo"]Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!EmpCom
You are missing the point completely. The term 'good' is better represented in reference to something else. If you tried only one TV size at a particular distance, the term 'good' is unsubstantial. How do you know if it is really good without making any comparisons? How do you know that it can't possibly be better? Besides, the 360 games are currently still in 720p. Your 1080p HDTV will not make the games 1080p if the source itself is still 720p. That's a lot of scaling up for a 60" TV. And the pixels are not all that invisible as you claim. I have tried displaying 480p on my HDTV before and the pixels are very noticeable in comparison to 720p. This shows that 300 lines makes a lot of difference. The same would apply for a native 1080 TV to be scaled down to 720.
Everything on the 360 is 1080p! What do you suggest a 1080p game is. The 360 can scale to 1080p so the TV won't have to, even original XBOX games. Sega is releasing a tennis game that renders at 1080p, but what does this mean? You are talking about the texture resolution and not the rendering resolution. texture resolution is far lower than even 720p for these games. You cannot compare a 480p image running on a 720p display to a 480p image running on a 480p display. When the screens native res. is not a 1:1 match to the source the image will look worse on that type of display. Ex: I have a 32" SDTV. Looks really good for a SDTV. I can sit 2-3 ft away and not see any, as you call them, pixels. If I am watching SD content on my 720p HDTV the image looks HORRIBLE compared to the SDTV. How do you suggest anyone try diff. TV sizes in their home. Last I checked, you couldn't just walk into a best buy and say, "I'd like a free trial of that TV over their. I'll be back next week to try the next size (up or down)". It's not practical. Most people are happier with larger tv, regardless of where they sit in their room!
Man if when watching sd on your hdtv it looks horrible then id say you have a crap hdtv
I meant horribe as in the diff. between watching on a true sdtv and 720p set. The SDTV has a better picture for standard tv. all of you people seem to be confusing pixels with image imperfection. Almost all Digital content is compressed to an extent and sometimes with larger tvs those imperfections become more noticable. You need to read up on how MPEG encode generates an MPEG image. If you were watching a 1080p signal that was perfect with no compression it would be VERY difficult to notice an individual "pixel".Everything on the 360 is 1080p! What do you suggest a 1080p game is. The 360 can scale to 1080p so the TV won't have to, even original XBOX games. Sega is releasing a tennis game that renders at 1080p, but what does this mean? You are talking about the texture resolution and not the rendering resolution. texture resolution is far lower than even 720p for these games. You cannot compare a 480p image running on a 720p display to a 480p image running on a 480p display. When the screens native res. is not a 1:1 match to the source the image will look worse on that type of display. Ex: I have a 32" SDTV. Looks really good for a SDTV. I can sit 2-3 ft away and not see any, as you call them, pixels. If I am watching SD content on my 720p HDTV the image looks HORRIBLE compared to the SDTV. How do you suggest anyone try diff. TV sizes in their home. Last I checked, you couldn't just walk into a best buy and say, "I'd like a free trial of that TV over their. I'll be back next week to try the next size (up or down)". It's not practical. Most people are happier with larger tv, regardless of where they sit in their room! cspiffo
Are you sure you know what you are saying? By everything on 360 is 1080p? Games have to be developed specifically for 1080p in order to be 1080p. You think just because your HDTV is 1080p, then you will get 1080p display? Xbox originally supported up to 720p only. All the original launch titles were only capable of 720p. now that the 360 has updates to display 1080p, then maybe future games will be 1080p, but not the old ones. You think the developers made the games 1080p knowing that the Xbox could only display up to 720p?
Besides, 1080p may technically be a waste of graphics power. There is a limit as to how many polygons a graphics card can handle. why waste it on doubling the polygons when that extra power used can be utilized for other things like background detail for instance. It is applicable for smaller TVs though. For those using anything below 40", 720p is almost as good as 1080p. I would rather have the game at 720p and have better detail or draw distance than have 1080p at the expense of detail and draw distance. This is presumably the primary reason why Xbox 360 games look better than the ps3 games in general. The ps3 hardware is wasted on doubling the polygons instead of fine tuning the details. Games like GoW are probably maxing out the 360 hardware, explaining why the framrate is a little choppy and the background suffers a reduction in quality. GoW is currently at 720p. If GoW were to be 1080p. The 360 hardware has to double the work in terms on polygon rendering. They will have to cut back somewhere. And is that necessarily better?
[QUOTE="cspiffo"]Everything on the 360 is 1080p! What do you suggest a 1080p game is. The 360 can scale to 1080p so the TV won't have to, even original XBOX games. Sega is releasing a tennis game that renders at 1080p, but what does this mean? You are talking about the texture resolution and not the rendering resolution. texture resolution is far lower than even 720p for these games. You cannot compare a 480p image running on a 720p display to a 480p image running on a 480p display. When the screens native res. is not a 1:1 match to the source the image will look worse on that type of display. Ex: I have a 32" SDTV. Looks really good for a SDTV. I can sit 2-3 ft away and not see any, as you call them, pixels. If I am watching SD content on my 720p HDTV the image looks HORRIBLE compared to the SDTV. How do you suggest anyone try diff. TV sizes in their home. Last I checked, you couldn't just walk into a best buy and say, "I'd like a free trial of that TV over their. I'll be back next week to try the next size (up or down)". It's not practical. Most people are happier with larger tv, regardless of where they sit in their room! jhcho2
Are you sure you know what you are saying? By everything on 360 is 1080p? Games have to be developed specifically for 1080p in order to be 1080p. You think just because your HDTV is 1080p, then you will get 1080p display? Xbox originally supported up to 720p only. All the original launch titles were only capable of 720p. now that the 360 has updates to display 1080p, then maybe future games will be 1080p, but not the old ones. You think the developers made the games 1080p knowing that the Xbox could only display up to 720p?
Besides, 1080p may technically be a waste of graphics power. There is a limit as to how many polygons a graphics card can handle. why waste it on doubling the polygons when that extra power used can be utilized for other things like background detail for instance. It is applicable for smaller TVs though. For those using anything below 40", 720p is almost as good as 1080p. I would rather have the game at 720p and have better detail or draw distance than have 1080p at the expense of detail and draw distance. This is presumably the primary reason why Xbox 360 games look better than the ps3 games in general. The ps3 hardware is wasted on doubling the polygons instead of fine tuning the details. Games like GoW are probably maxing out the 360 hardware, explaining why the framrate is a little choppy and the background suffers a reduction in quality. GoW is currently at 720p. If GoW were to be 1080p. The 360 hardware has to double the work in terms on polygon rendering. They will have to cut back somewhere. And is that necessarily better?
Games don't have to be designed for any specific resolution. The advantage of using a different resolution is to make polygon angles cleaner and to define small and distant objects better. That's it. You can run older PC games at 1920X1080 but that doesn't make them have better quality graphics compared to say, Oblivion running at 1024X768. The resolution of rendering is only one part of image quality. These games that are out now do not use textures that are 1280X720 or 1920X1080. They use whatever resolution will look decent and run well at a target resolution. The target right now is 720p.
I think we are saying basically the same thing but we are both trying to say it in a different way. As I said before. Everything on the 360 is scaled up to 1080p. this is internal scaling which is much better than having the TV's analog (crap) scaler do it. Also all original XBOX games will be scaled AND use FSAA to improve these games quality on a higher res. display. Again, EVERYTHING ON THE 360 CAN BE DISPLAYED AT 1080P!
[QUOTE="cspiffo"]Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!jhcho2
You are missing the point completely. The term 'good' is better represented in reference to something else. If you tried only one TV size at a particular distance, the term 'good' is unsubstantial. How do you know if it is really good without making any comparisons? How do you know that it can't possibly be better? Besides, the 360 games are currently still in 720p. Your 1080p HDTV will not make the games 1080p if the source itself is still 720p. That's a lot of scaling up for a 60" TV. And the pixels are not all that invisible as you claim. I have tried displaying 480p on my HDTV before and the pixels are very noticeable in comparison to 720p. This shows that 300 lines makes a lot of difference. The same would apply for a native 1080 TV to be scaled down to 720.
Lost Planet is 1080p
[QUOTE="jhcho2"][QUOTE="cspiffo"]Dude what crap are you spewin'. What looks good is whatever the viewer says it is; not what some fancy calculator tells you it is. "Bloated Pixels!", Jeez. we're in the HD era now. Pixels are down right tiny now and you shouldn't notice them at that size or viewing distance. You have the wrong info. I guess you haven't been reading up but the xbox 360 is 100% capable of displaying 1080p for EVERYTHING!DBone420
You are missing the point completely. The term 'good' is better represented in reference to something else. If you tried only one TV size at a particular distance, the term 'good' is unsubstantial. How do you know if it is really good without making any comparisons? How do you know that it can't possibly be better? Besides, the 360 games are currently still in 720p. Your 1080p HDTV will not make the games 1080p if the source itself is still 720p. That's a lot of scaling up for a 60" TV. And the pixels are not all that invisible as you claim. I have tried displaying 480p on my HDTV before and the pixels are very noticeable in comparison to 720p. This shows that 300 lines makes a lot of difference. The same would apply for a native 1080 TV to be scaled down to 720.
Lost Planet is 1080p Actually Lost Planet is limited to an internal rendering resolution of 720p. The XBOX 360 uses it's scaler and FSAA to stretch the image to 1080p. If you look at of the game boxes after the fall dashboard update they all say that every game supports 1080p. Why? BECAUSE THE XBOX 360 CAN SCALE EVERYTHING TO 1080P! Calling a game 1080p really means nothing. All it means is that the game will run @ 60fps most of the time at 1920X1080 resolution on the XBOX 360 or PS3 The game would probably run better with less frame drops at 720p resoultion which is why games like resistance were limited to 720p. The game just didn't run smoothly enough at such a high rendering resolution. There is too much emphasis on whether a game is 720p or 1080p. The truth is that it really won't matter for this generation. Most heavy action games will be limited to 720p due to hardware limitations. That doesn't mean that the games produced can't run at higher resolutions. It means that the 360 and PS3 aren't capable of running these intense games at that high of a rendering resolution. 1920X1080 is even difficult for most high end PC's with the latest game software. There are many factors that will determine whether a game will run at 1080p or not. A game can run at 1080p but can look like crap. Another game can run at 720p and look amazing. It all depends on what the programmers and Artists are able to do within the limits of the hardware being used. Neither of these current consoles are capable of running photo-realistic images rendered in 3D at a decent fps
Umm... I belive you mean 67" not 67' :DSamsung 67' DLP 1080p model # HL-S6767W
This thing is sick! I got it for only $2,500 too, when it can sell for $3,500 usually. Native 1080p Woot! Sorry for bragging, im just very happy as I have been saving for this for a long time. FTW!
DBone420
The way i see, some of the really old PC games run at 800x600 at most. Regardless of how good your monitor is, the game isn't going to be any better than 800x600. even if your monitor is say 1280x1024, the game will be scaled up, but then it will still be 800x600. They will compensate the bigger screen size by bloating up the pixels. You can call it 1280x1024 if you want, but that doesn't make it so.
That's what made ps3 a little more attractive. Because all the games had a native resolution of 1080p. If it were that simple for a 720p game to be 1080p, Xbox 360 would have claimed a long time ago that their's is 1080p.jhcho2No PS3 game to date is 1080p. And the 360 is definitely capable of native 1080p games, it just hasn't been done yet. Everything so far is upscaled to 1080p. And most games on either console won't be 1080p, because a lot of the "eye candy" would have to be stripped out to allow the higher resolution. I just don't see this happening, especially since not many people own a 1080p tv. It's bad business to alienate the masses to cater to the small minority.
[QUOTE="jdknight21"]The Discovery Channel HD is amazing.
snackdaddy
Amen brotha!
I saw a show about rain forest bugs on Discovery HD a few days ago. It was definitely one of the most memorable HD experiences that I've encountered. Discovery HD rocks!!!With TV that size, you better be sitting at the right distance away. Bigger is not necessarily better if the distance to size proportion isn't right. At 1.5 meters away from the TV, i would rather have a 40" than 67". Besides, i don't think that the Xbox 360's 720p would look as good on a 60" TV unless you are stiing far away.But if the tv has a vga port, he could play at 1080p. And if the tv has a good deinterlace filter, then 1080i will look about the same as 1080p.
jhcho2
It's all a matter of opinion. I personally don't see the point of getting a big tv if you're going to sit further away from it and make it appear smaller. I sit less than 3 feet from my 30" tv, and about 10 feet from my 144" projector image. But everyone has their own preference, mine is just different.-GeordiLaForge-
You are missing our point. What we were trying to say is that bigger is not necessarily better because the quality drops as the pixels are enlarged. If bigger=better, then why not put your eyes 1 feet from the screen? That way, it is almost equivalent to having a 100" TV, but obviously it doesn't look better. Personally, i think that there is an ideal distance to size ratio. Below that ratio, the visual isn't optimized, above it, the pixels become a little obvious. But of course, even if the pixels become a little obvious, it doesn't mean that the graphics would suck. It would still look good, but not the best.
When people say that a game is 1080p, it immediately implies that the native resolution has to be 1080p. A game that has a native 720p resolution up scaled to 1080p is technically not 1080p. That's what made ps3 a little more attractive. Because all the games had a native resolution of 1080p. If it were that simple for a 720p game to be 1080p, Xbox 360 would have claimed a long time ago that their's is 1080p. So, despite what you said, the native resolution is all which matters.
The way i see, some of the really old PC games run at 800x600 at most. Regardless of how good your monitor is, the game isn't going to be any better than 800x600. even if your monitor is say 1280x1024, the game will be scaled up, but then it will still be 800x600. They will compensate the bigger screen size by bloating up the pixels. You can call it 1280x1024 if you want, but that doesn't make it so.
jhcho2
You are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. There is no such thing as a games native resolution. The only reason we are even discussing this whole 1080p vs. 720p thing is due to the limitations of the two new consoles. PC games have never been limited in the rendering resolution that they can be displayed at. There is no such thing as an 800X600 res. game. You are still talking about texture resolution. Think of it this way. Resistance has beautiful visuals, however, if you move up close to the side of a building the visuals look like crap. This is due to the lack of texture resolution. Sure the game is running at 720p rendering resolution but that does not make the texture resolution anywhere near a 1280X720 image. The only reason we even consider resistance a 720p game is due to the PS3's hardware limitations. If the PS3 were more powerful then Resistance could easily be set to run at 1080p and beyond. You can even find emultators on the internet that will RENDER PS1 games at higher resolutions. Rendering resolution does not make textures any higher in resolution' it just makes them smoother and more easily discernable at a farther distance. You can call a game 720p, 1080p or 800X600 till the cows come home but it will not make it true. Games do not have native resolutions. Hardware is what controls the games resolution not the software. PS3 games are not 1080p. They can have a max rendering resolution of 1080p, which is the same as the XBOX 360. Native 1080p was a marketing ploy by Sony to differentiate it from the competition which, at the time, was hardware limited to 720p. The Problem with the PS3 is that it has no hardware scaler. That means that if they wanted something to run at 1080p that wasn't designed to run at 1080p they would have to run it through the renderer again and then output to 1080p. That would take way too much computer power. That is why every thing on the PS3 is run at its source resolution. This is where the 360 has an advantage. It has a hardware scaler. If you want to run something at 1080p the system runs the source through it's digital scaler and, viola; you have 1080p output. This makes the source look much better for outputing to a matched display.
Both systems are capable of 1080p rendering, but you would lose way too much using that res. for most games. If the game is simple, like tennis, then 1080p will be possible on either console. That still will not make textures any higher res though. The screen will just be able to resolve at twice the pixel depth. It's kind of like a microscope; going from 10x to 40x. The source stays the same, but what changes is the level of detail at a distance. The source dictates the level of detail theoretically possible while the renderer resolves the distance between individual structures.
You are missing our point. What we were trying to say is that bigger is not necessarily better because the quality drops as the pixels are enlarged. If bigger=better, then why not put your eyes 1 feet from the screen? That way, it is almost equivalent to having a 100" TV, but obviously it doesn't look better. Personally, i think that there is an ideal distance to size ratio. Below that ratio, the visual isn't optimized, above it, the pixels become a little obvious. But of course, even if the pixels become a little obvious, it doesn't mean that the graphics would suck. It would still look good, but not the best.
jhcho2
I think your the one missing the point. It's all about preference; regardless of what anyone says. You can't tell someone what their viewing habits should be. I say as long as you can see the full screen image in your field of vision then that is just fine. You can adjust to your PREFERENCE from that point! It's not necessarily Pixels that you are seeing but image imperfections due to various reasons; such as compression or low texture resolution!
[QUOTE="jhcho2"]That's what made ps3 a little more attractive. Because all the games had a native resolution of 1080p. If it were that simple for a 720p game to be 1080p, Xbox 360 would have claimed a long time ago that their's is 1080p.-GeordiLaForge-No PS3 game to date is 1080p. And the 360 is definitely capable of native 1080p games, it just hasn't been done yet. Everything so far is upscaled to 1080p. And most games on either console won't be 1080p, because a lot of the "eye candy" would have to be stripped out to allow the higher resolution. I just don't see this happening, especially since not many people own a 1080p tv. It's bad business to alienate the masses to cater to the small minority.
wrong. nba 07 and ridgeracer7 are 1080p
[QUOTE="jhcho2"]That's what made ps3 a little more attractive. Because all the games had a native resolution of 1080p. If it were that simple for a 720p game to be 1080p, Xbox 360 would have claimed a long time ago that their's is 1080p.-GeordiLaForge-No PS3 game to date is 1080p. And the 360 is definitely capable of native 1080p games, it just hasn't been done yet. Everything so far is upscaled to 1080p. And most games on either console won't be 1080p, because a lot of the "eye candy" would have to be stripped out to allow the higher resolution. I just don't see this happening, especially since not many people own a 1080p tv. It's bad business to alienate the masses to cater to the small minority. actually PS3 does have native 1080p games. like Ridge Racer 7, NBA 07, and GTHD 360 is getting it's first 1080p native games soon in NBA Street and Virtua Tennis 3
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="jhcho2"]That's what made ps3 a little more attractive. Because all the games had a native resolution of 1080p. If it were that simple for a 720p game to be 1080p, Xbox 360 would have claimed a long time ago that their's is 1080p.XboxUndergroundNo PS3 game to date is 1080p. And the 360 is definitely capable of native 1080p games, it just hasn't been done yet. Everything so far is upscaled to 1080p. And most games on either console won't be 1080p, because a lot of the "eye candy" would have to be stripped out to allow the higher resolution. I just don't see this happening, especially since not many people own a 1080p tv. It's bad business to alienate the masses to cater to the small minority. actually PS3 does have native 1080p games. like Ridge Racer 7, NBA 07, and GTHD 360 is getting it's first 1080p native games soon in NBA Street and Virtua Tennis 3 There is no such thing as a native 1080p game when talking about 3d rendered games. It either plays at 1080p or it doesn't. No such thing as native 1080p for 3d game software. If a game works on the 360 at 1080p why would they even allow it to be run at another resolution. The scaler is used to adjust the output to your screens resolution. All of these buzz words flying around. Naitive this and native that; it means nothing when talking about software and rendering. It just so happens that those two games you mentioned run well at 1080p so the developers allow the hardware to run it at that res. Then the games get the designation of native 1080p by the public which is not 100% accurate. We should really be getting away from that term.
Hmm, people seem to have mixed opinions here. I'm not sure who is right. jhcho2That's kind of what I am getting at. It's all up to personal preference. Ain't nothin' wrong wit dat! For some things nobody has to be right!
Can i have it?
No PS3 game to date is 1080p. And the 360 is definitely capable of native 1080p games, it just hasn't been done yet. Everything so far is upscaled to 1080p. And most games on either console won't be 1080p, because a lot of the "eye candy" would have to be stripped out to allow the higher resolution. I just don't see this happening, especially since not many people own a 1080p tv. It's bad business to alienate the masses to cater to the small minority.[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="jhcho2"]That's what made ps3 a little more attractive. Because all the games had a native resolution of 1080p. If it were that simple for a 720p game to be 1080p, Xbox 360 would have claimed a long time ago that their's is 1080p.ebkboy
wrong. nba 07 and ridgeracer7 are 1080p
My mistake. My main point was that the 360 is definitely capable of native 1080p.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment