Playstation 3 and 1440x900/1680x1050 support.

I don't think it does.

I hooked up a PS3 via HDMI to a 24" monitor and the PS3 only gave me options for 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p.

Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)agentzero23

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

Well...it certainly doesn't yet.

sidenote: I was shocked to hear that if you try to force 1080p in Soul Calibur 4, the resolution drops to 576p :shock:

[QUOTE="agentzero23"]Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)hongkingkong

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

If you game on those ancient first generation plasmas yah burn in would suck or a nice 1080p lcd

EDIT: or just game on a nice 50" 1080p LCD

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

[QUOTE="agentzero23"]Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)agentzero23

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

If you game on those ancient first generation plasmas yah burn in would suck or a nice 1080p lcd

now that is a hymn i'll sing along to ;)

Didnt' the 360 already support PC resolutions with the VGA cable? I always assumed it also scaled to 16:10. Never really needed it, though.

Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)agentzero23

'cause a monitor will give you a very good amount of visual real estate if you sit closely, while being cheaper and have an insanely good picture quality?

No, that cannot be. Makes too much sense.

Then again, I do play on a 57" 1080p tv.

With the fall update the Xbox 360 is finally getting some 16:10 support at these resolutions. Does/or will the PS3 support these resolutions? :question:TekkenMaster606

Welcome to the resolution wars.

So I guess the answer is no, and no it won't be. TekkenMaster606

/sarcasm.

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]With the fall update the Xbox 360 is finally getting some 16:10 support at these resolutions. Does/or will the PS3 support these resolutions? :question:HAZE-Unit

Welcome to the resolution wars.

Is it so wrong of me to expect my consoles to provide a wide array of display options? The video cards inside of my PC certainly do.

Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)agentzero23

Because I don't feel like shelling out a couple thousand for a TV when I can just use my monitor. That way I can surf the web while waiting for a match to start on XBL.

Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)agentzero23

Those are PC resolutions, why would you want consoles to support them?

All console games are built around 16:9, where is the sense in supporting a resolutiuon that would only result in veticle image stretching?

[QUOTE="agentzero23"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

[QUOTE="agentzero23"]Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)hongkingkong

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

If you game on those ancient first generation plasmas yah burn in would suck or a nice 1080p lcd

now that is a hymn i'll sing along to ;)

Well no one should be singing to that tune. LCD's are terrible for gaming. LCD's for the most part aren't very good for much of anything. They suck for gaming because the response time of the pixels is way to slow resulting in blurring around anything moving fast. They suck for everything else because they are too bright with a crummy contrast ratio causing all of the color to be washed out and black levels are a mess.

If you must go with LCD get the Samsung 650 series as it is the fastest and has the deepest blacks of all LCDs at the moment. Or wait for Sony to unleash the XBR8 this fall.

But if you want the best of the best get a panasonic or pioneer plasma. There is no burn in concerns anymore. They have the deepest blacks, most true colors, and are very fast--so there is no blurring.

Plasma all the way. I would get a good samsung rear projection tv before I would go LCD due to speed/blurring issues.

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]With the fall update the Xbox 360 is finally getting some 16:10 support at these resolutions. Does/or will the PS3 support these resolutions? :question:HAZE-Unit

Welcome to the resolution wars.

you're not saying it right, allow me:

RESOLUTION WARS!!!

.

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]With the fall update the Xbox 360 is finally getting some 16:10 support at these resolutions. Does/or will the PS3 support these resolutions? :question:DementedDragon

Welcome to the resolution wars.

you're not saying it right, allow me:

RESOLUTION WARS!!!

.

teh funny :lol:

More like:

RESOLUTION WARS

_ EPISODE I _

THE FANBOY MENACE

Plasma all the way. I would get a good samsung rear projection tv before I would go LCD due to speed/blurring issues.

hongkingkong

Have you seen a 120HZ LCD in action? No blurring whatsoever, just awesomeness.

You know I was thinking...

There was a time when 1280x1024 was considered a high resolution on PC, eventually 1600x1200 replaced it as the high end res and 1280x1024 became the mainstream standard. Then 1920x1200 became the high end res, 1680x1050 the upper/mainstream and 1280x1024 the lower standard. This process goes across many many years, what is considered the standard gaming res shifts much slower than graphical advancement.

There are people who think 720p will be the minimum resolution next console gen, with 1080p becoming the standard and 1440p becoming the upper end. If true that would be advancing WAY too fast; a good deal of the hardware advancement moving to the next generation of consoles would be soaked up by the resolution.

I honestly think the 720p/1080p resolutions will remain next console gen; going any higher will be a mistake, developers would struggle to maintain the res while offering a visual improvement that can be considered 'next gen'.

[QUOTE="agentzero23"]Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)hongkingkong

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

you my friend are an idiot, i have a 50 inch 1080p samsung ( pn50a550 ) and i game all the time and no burn-in. thats a old myth that needs to go away. plasmas have the best picture way better than lcd's. they have so many features to fight burn-in the only way to get it is if you do it in purpose, and even then its really difficult.

More like:

RESOLUTION WARS

_ EPISODE I _

THE FANBOY MENACE

blitzcloud

Teh double sized funny :lol:

[QUOTE="agentzero23"]Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)hongkingkong

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

if you leave your game paused for a ridiculously long time on an old plasma.

With the fall update the Xbox 360 is finally getting some 16:10 support at these resolutions. Does/or will the PS3 support these resolutions? :question:TekkenMaster606

The answer to your question is no right now, probably in time.

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

Plasma all the way. I would get a good samsung rear projection tv before I would go LCD due to speed/blurring issues.

SimpJee

Have you seen a 120HZ LCD in action? No blurring whatsoever, just awesomeness.

That is a common misconception. 120htz does nothing for blurring. It was introduced to stop judder. Judder is when a shot in a movie is panned and the objects on the screen kind of hop past the camera, they kind of studder or judder across. The 12htz makes this look real smooth. An example would be in the Movie I Am Legend (which was not worth the price of admission), but there was a shot where a helicopter flew over the roof tops of buildings and filmed the tops of the roofs.

During this shot on a 60htz lcd, the tops of the buildings would studder or judder past. Now with 120htz, they go past real smooth as if you were actually there.

However, they still blur like crazy. The fastes LCD is the Samsung 650 and 750. They both have a milli-second response time of 4ms. Plasmas are less than 1 ms. If you watch small things move fast they blur. An example would be from the BBC series Planet Earth (which every blu-ray owner should have a copy of as it is the most stunning visuals of earth, nature, animals ever caught on tape). There is a scene where you will see all kinds of shadowing around the edges of the birds wings. Then the camera pans out and the white bird turns and flys across the screen. This scene on the Samsung 650(fastes LCD to date) looks horrible. The bird flickers and turns into a white blob. You can't even make out what it is.

Then you could put in any movie and watch closups of the actors, everytime the move their heads with a rapid pace, their fleshtone blurs like crazy. LCDs still have a ways to go. As of now, Plasma all the way.

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"][QUOTE="agentzero23"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

[QUOTE="agentzero23"]Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)HuhJustaBox

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

If you game on those ancient first generation plasmas yah burn in would suck or a nice 1080p lcd

now that is a hymn i'll sing along to ;)

Well no one should be singing to that tune. LCD's are terrible for gaming. LCD's for the most part aren't very good for much of anything. They suck for gaming because the response time of the pixels is way to slow resulting in blurring around anything moving fast. They suck for everything else because they are too bright with a crummy contrast ratio causing all of the color to be washed out and black levels are a mess.

If you must go with LCD get the Samsung 650 series as it is the fastest and has the deepest blacks of all LCDs at the moment. Or wait for Sony to unleash the XBR8 this fall.

But if you want the best of the best get a panasonic or pioneer plasma. There is no burn in concerns anymore. They have the deepest blacks, most true colors, and are very fast--so there is no blurring.

Plasma all the way. I would get a good samsung rear projection tv before I would go LCD due to speed/blurring issues.

yeah because a response time of 8ms is slow... it equates to 125hz which is pretty good(some of the best plasmas are only 100hz) and then there is my LCD monitor with 2ms and LCD's are only getting better not to mention the extremely high resolutions... plasmas are dead now, everyone knows this. They were good in the begining because of their high contrast ratios but as LCD's are getting cheaper, faster, higher contrast ratios and better resolutions all the time what reason is there for plasma?

will 360 support 1440 x 900 through component?

i have a 19-inch sharp with that resolution

You know I was thinking...

There was a time when 1280x1024 was considered a high resolution on PC, eventually 1600x1200 replaced it as the high end res and 1280x1024 became the mainstream standard. Then 1920x1200 became the high end res, 1680x1050 the upper/mainstream and 1280x1024 the lower standard. This process goes across many many years, what is considered the standard gaming res shifts much slower than graphical advancement.

There are people who think 720p will be the minimum resolution next console gen, with 1080p becoming the standard and 1440p becoming the upper end. If true that would be advancing WAY too fast; a good deal of the hardware advancement moving to the next generation of consoles would be soaked up by the resolution.

I honestly think the 720p/1080p resolutions will remain next console gen; going any higher will be a mistake, developers would struggle to maintain the res while offering a visual improvement that can be considered 'next gen'.

AnnoyedDragon

Not really. Look at how the high end gpu's perform at very high resolutions right now. In particular, look at how well the GTX 280 handles games like crysis at the highest resolutions. By the time next gen console hardware is finalised, it is feasbale for them to have such a card as the price would no doubt have come down by then. Lots of current mid range cards run 1080p right now so in a couple of years, having that resolution as standard will be easy and relatively cheap to incorperate into ne console's gpu's.

[QUOTE="agentzero23"]Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)hongkingkong

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

Burn in is so old news dude. New plasmas don't burn in, especially if you buy a good brand like Pioneer, Panasonic, or Samsung. All the new models have something called 'pixel shift', which is essentially a wipe of the pixels every 2 minutes to eradicate burn-in.

Just an FYI.

Oh and IMO a 50" plasma > any monitor you could dream up.

[QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

Plasma all the way. I would get a good samsung rear projection tv before I would go LCD due to speed/blurring issues.

HuhJustaBox

Have you seen a 120HZ LCD in action? No blurring whatsoever, just awesomeness.

That is a common misconception. 120htz does nothing for blurring. It was introduced to stop judder. Judder is when a shot in a movie is panned and the objects on the screen kind of hop past the camera, they kind of studder or judder across. The 12htz makes this look real smooth. An example would be in the Movie I Am Legend (which was not worth the price of admission), but there was a shot where a helicopter flew over the roof tops of buildings and filmed the tops of the roofs.

During this shot on a 60htz lcd, the tops of the buildings would studder or judder past. Now with 120htz, they go past real smooth as if you were actually there.

However, they still blur like crazy. The fastes LCD is the Samsung 650 and 750. They both have a milli-second response time of 4ms. Plasmas are less than 1 ms. If you watch small things move fast they blur. An example would be from the BBC series Planet Earth (which every blu-ray owner should have a copy of as it is the most stunning visuals of earth, nature, animals ever caught on tape). There is a scene where you will see all kinds of shadowing around the edges of the birds wings. Then the camera pans out and the white bird turns and flys across the screen. This scene on the Samsung 650(fastes LCD to date) looks horrible. The bird flickers and turns into a white blob. You can't even make out what it is.

Then you could put in any movie and watch closups of the actors, everytime the move their heads with a rapid pace, their fleshtone blurs like crazy. LCDs still have a ways to go. As of now, Plasma all the way.

120 hz looks kind of unnatural in movies, it doesn't do as much for games as companies would like you to think (a good plasma still beats it every time), but it really shines with sports and documentaries. Planet Earth looks unbelievable on a Samsung 750.

Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)agentzero23

so it looks better and if ps3 can't even manage 600p in some game 900p/1080p would be a silde show

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

Plasma all the way. I would get a good samsung rear projection tv before I would go LCD due to speed/blurring issues.

excelR83

Have you seen a 120HZ LCD in action? No blurring whatsoever, just awesomeness.

That is a common misconception. 120htz does nothing for blurring. It was introduced to stop judder. Judder is when a shot in a movie is panned and the objects on the screen kind of hop past the camera, they kind of studder or judder across. The 12htz makes this look real smooth. An example would be in the Movie I Am Legend (which was not worth the price of admission), but there was a shot where a helicopter flew over the roof tops of buildings and filmed the tops of the roofs.

During this shot on a 60htz lcd, the tops of the buildings would studder or judder past. Now with 120htz, they go past real smooth as if you were actually there.

However, they still blur like crazy. The fastes LCD is the Samsung 650 and 750. They both have a milli-second response time of 4ms. Plasmas are less than 1 ms. If you watch small things move fast they blur. An example would be from the BBC series Planet Earth (which every blu-ray owner should have a copy of as it is the most stunning visuals of earth, nature, animals ever caught on tape). There is a scene where you will see all kinds of shadowing around the edges of the birds wings. Then the camera pans out and the white bird turns and flys across the screen. This scene on the Samsung 650(fastes LCD to date) looks horrible. The bird flickers and turns into a white blob. You can't even make out what it is.

Then you could put in any movie and watch closups of the actors, everytime the move their heads with a rapid pace, their fleshtone blurs like crazy. LCDs still have a ways to go. As of now, Plasma all the way.

120 hz looks kind of unnatural in movies, it doesn't do as much for games as companies would like you to think (a good plasma still beats it every time), but it really shines with sports and documentaries. Planet Earth looks unbelievable on a Samsung 750.

Have you seen 120 hz it has this weird blur effect and doesn't look right but plasmas are the best right now until oled or laser tvs come and takes over.

Not really. Look at how the high end gpu's perform at very high resolutions right now. In particular, look at how well the GTX 280 handles games like crysis at the highest resolutions. By the time next gen console hardware is finalised, it is feasbale for them to have such a card as the price would no doubt have come down by then. Lots of current mid range cards run 1080p right now so in a couple of years, having that resolution as standard will be easy and relatively cheap to incorperate into ne console's gpu's.

DAZZER7

You mean how 720p is such a standard this generation? How every game has managed to maintain a 720p minimum?

When I first heard PS3 was going for 1080p gaming I thought they were mad, high resolutions was always something for PC gaming and the 1920x1200 range was modern XXXXXGTX or SLI hardware. Of course it ended up with 1080p being the vast minority, with the few games using it having to make visual sacrifices to maintain the res, but that's not the point.

720p is a lower resolution than what was used by gaming PCs when console GPUs like RSX was the PC gaming standard, 7800GTX was running games much higher than 1280x800 on PC. Having the lower resolution is part of what lets them squeeze the visuals they do out of the hardware.

If you start assigning PC standard resolutions to consoles, which historically has lower resolutions than PC, then you are asking for either expensive console systems or significant visual sacrifices. Consoles are not PCs and shouldn't attempt to maintain similar standards, they need to accept their position in the market or they are going to hurt themselves. 1080p is still an enthusiast res today; consoles shouldn't even be considering it when they have old/static hardware to work with.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Not really. Look at how the high end gpu's perform at very high resolutions right now. In particular, look at how well the GTX 280 handles games like crysis at the highest resolutions. By the time next gen console hardware is finalised, it is feasbale for them to have such a card as the price would no doubt have come down by then. Lots of current mid range cards run 1080p right now so in a couple of years, having that resolution as standard will be easy and relatively cheap to incorperate into ne console's gpu's.

AnnoyedDragon

You mean how 720p is such a standard this generation? How every game has managed to maintain a 720p minimum?

When I first heard PS3 was going for 1080p gaming I thought they were mad, high resolutions was always something for PC gaming and the 1920x1200 range was modern XXXXXGTX or SLI hardware. Of course it ended up with 1080p being the vast minority, with the few games using it having to make visual sacrifices to maintain the res, but that's not the point.

720p is a lower resolution than what was used by gaming PCs when console GPUs like RSX was the PC gaming standard, 7800GTX was running games much higher than 1280x800 on PC. Having the lower resolution is part of what lets them squeeze the visuals they do out of the hardware.

If you start assigning PC standard resolutions to consoles, which historically has lower resolutions than PC, then you are asking for either expensive console systems or significant visual sacrifices. Consoles are not PCs and shouldn't attempt to maintain similar standards, they need to accept their position in the market or they are going to hurt themselves. 1080p is still an enthusiast res today; consoles shouldn't even be considering it when they have old/static hardware to work with.

I get what your saying but we're only talking about 1080p being a standard. That should be achievable for even the most modest cards in a few years time, right? I really do get what your saying because, 720p should easily be attainable by todays consoles, yet we see 600p here 576p there. You may be right...:?

Well...it certainly doesn't yet.

sidenote: I was shocked to hear that if you try to force 1080p in Soul Calibur 4, the resolution drops to 576p :shock:

Dreams-Visions

That's why you don't force 1080p. I recently found out that when I found out Warhawk looked better in 720p than forced 1080p. Quaz just backed it up for me.

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"][QUOTE="agentzero23"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

[QUOTE="agentzero23"]Why game on a monitor instead on a nice 50" 1080p plasma;)sammysalsa

space, resolution, plasma suck for gaming cus of burn in :|

If you game on those ancient first generation plasmas yah burn in would suck or a nice 1080p lcd

now that is a hymn i'll sing along to ;)

Well no one should be singing to that tune. LCD's are terrible for gaming. LCD's for the most part aren't very good for much of anything. They suck for gaming because the response time of the pixels is way to slow resulting in blurring around anything moving fast. They suck for everything else because they are too bright with a crummy contrast ratio causing all of the color to be washed out and black levels are a mess.

If you must go with LCD get the Samsung 650 series as it is the fastest and has the deepest blacks of all LCDs at the moment. Or wait for Sony to unleash the XBR8 this fall.

But if you want the best of the best get a panasonic or pioneer plasma. There is no burn in concerns anymore. They have the deepest blacks, most true colors, and are very fast--so there is no blurring.

Plasma all the way. I would get a good samsung rear projection tv before I would go LCD due to speed/blurring issues.

yeah because a response time of 8ms is slow... it equates to 125hz which is pretty good(some of the best plasmas are only 100hz) and then there is my LCD monitor with 2ms and LCD's are only getting better not to mention the extremely high resolutions... plasmas are dead now, everyone knows this. They were good in the begining because of their high contrast ratios but as LCD's are getting cheaper, faster, higher contrast ratios and better resolutions all the time what reason is there for plasma?

Just no on so many levels.

8ms is very very slow and will blur like crazy!

Plasma has always been 480htz unless you are refering to some no name plasma manufacturer.

LCD's are cheaper? Just NO!!! Not even close! You can get the panasonic th50pz85u for around $2000 and the Samsung ln52a650 will run you near $3000 and the panasonic still runs circles around it.

I teach full time and work at Circuit City at night selling tvs. This is my line of work as my first degree was in electronics. Trust me, do the research. The Panasonic th50pz800u is now the highest rated tv in the world. They finally knocked off the Pioneer Kuro plasmas that have been king of the hill for the past several years. Go on CNET.com and other sites to read up on professional reviews if you don't believe me.

As for your computer moniter that has 2ms response time, you should not see any blurring on that at all. I don't follow moniters too much, as when I game, watch movies, etc. it is all on a big screen tv. But if you choose to do it on a moniter that has a 2ms response time, you should not see any blurring.

The only thing that holds plasma back are peoples' misconceptions. Most people looking for a tv ask me for LCD's and I ask why not consider plasma. They always tell me that their uncle's neighbors lawnboy said they were bad. Or they heard they don't last as long, the gases need recharged, they have burn in, etc.

After I educate them and give them the facts that none of that is true and show them the plasma next to the LCD, very few people choose LCD. Plasma now lasts 60,000 to 100,000 hours where LCD's are typically 40,000-60,000. You never need to recharge gases, and burn in is no longer an issue due to pixel shifter tech and the scrolling white bar tech.

Again, plasma all the way. Cheaper, better blacks, deeper truer color, lasts longer, gives much more natural picture, no blurring...then the question comes up....Why even look at LCD. My answer, don't waste your time looking. Not until the get better color, deeper blacks, and get that reponse time to under 2ms.

Just no on so many levels.

8ms is very very slow and will blur like crazy!

Plasma has always been 480htz unless you are refering to some no name plasma manufacturer.

LCD's are cheaper? Just NO!!! Not even close! You can get the panasonic th50pz85u for around $2000 and the Samsung ln52a650 will run you near $3000 and the panasonic still runs circles around it.

I teach full time and work at Circuit City at night selling tvs. This is my line of work as my first degree was in electronics. Trust me, do the research. The Panasonic th50pz800u is now the highest rated tv in the world. They finally knocked off the Pioneer Kuro plasmas that have been king of the hill for the past several years. Go on CNET.com and other sites to read up on professional reviews if you don't believe me.

As for your computer moniter that has 2ms response time, you should not see any blurring on that at all. I don't follow moniters too much, as when I game, watch movies, etc. it is all on a big screen tv. But if you choose to do it on a moniter that has a 2ms response time, you should not see any blurring.

The only thing that holds plasma back are peoples' misconceptions. Most people looking for a tv ask me for LCD's and I ask why not consider plasma. They always tell me that their uncle's neighbors lawnboy said they were bad. Or they heard they don't last as long, the gases need recharged, they have burn in, etc.

After I educate them and give them the facts that none of that is true and show them the plasma next to the LCD, very few people choose LCD. Plasma now lasts 60,000 to 100,000 hours where LCD's are typically 40,000-60,000. You never need to recharge gases, and burn in is no longer an issue due to pixel shifter tech and the scrolling white bar tech.

Again, plasma all the way. Cheaper, better blacks, deeper truer color, lasts longer, gives much more natural picture, no blurring...then the question comes up....Why even look at LCD. My answer, don't waste your time looking. Not until the get better color, deeper blacks, and get that reponse time to under 2ms.

HuhJustaBox