|
Home > Archive > Xbox forum > March 2006 > Question for High Definition enthusiasts
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Question for High Definition enthusiasts
|
|
| Jeff Nowakowski 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| Why do games need 1080p or even 720p when games lag behind something
you'd see in a DVD movie on a standard television?
Case in point: I downloaded the Annapolis movie trailer from Live and
watched it on a standard television. Looked fine to me. I didn't think
that it was grainy nor did I wish I had a higher resolution.
Next I watched the Call of Duty 2 trailer. It was decent, but not even
close to the movie trailer.
-Jeff
| |
|
| You, my friend are clueless!
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:NfdHf.374$4h3.174@fe05.lga...
quote:
> Why do games need 1080p or even 720p when games lag behind something you'd
> see in a DVD movie on a standard television?
>
> Case in point: I downloaded the Annapolis movie trailer from Live and
> watched it on a standard television. Looked fine to me. I didn't think
> that it was grainy nor did I wish I had a higher resolution.
>
> Next I watched the Call of Duty 2 trailer. It was decent, but not even
> close to the movie trailer.
>
> -Jeff
| |
|
| Play orig xbox on 480p or 1080i, then play 360 on same set at 720p
If you don't instantly see "why", I will have to agree with the other
poster.
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:NfdHf.374$4h3.174@fe05.lga...
quote:
> Why do games need 1080p or even 720p when games lag behind something you'd
> see in a DVD movie on a standard television?
>
> Case in point: I downloaded the Annapolis movie trailer from Live and
> watched it on a standard television. Looked fine to me. I didn't think
> that it was grainy nor did I wish I had a higher resolution.
>
> Next I watched the Call of Duty 2 trailer. It was decent, but not even
> close to the movie trailer.
>
> -Jeff
| |
| Badass Scotsman 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| > Why do games need 1080p or even 720p when games lag behind something you'd
quote:
> see in a DVD movie on a standard television?
Here's a wee expiriment for you.
If your running a Windows PC with a monitor capable of displaying 1024 x
768, then set it as your resolution and use the PC for an hour.
Ater the hour is up, change your display resolution to 640 x 480 , and use
for another hour.
Then change it back.
It helps you understand "roughly" what HDTV is all about. Sharper, cleaner
and more on screen (I think?). Im no expert...
Badass.
| |
| Jeff Nowakowski 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| Badass Scotsman wrote:
quote:
>
>
>
> Here's a wee expiriment for you.
>
> If your running a Windows PC with a monitor capable of displaying 1024 x
> 768, then set it as your resolution and use the PC for an hour.
> Ater the hour is up, change your display resolution to 640 x 480 , and use
> for another hour.
> Then change it back.
>
> It helps you understand "roughly" what HDTV is all about. Sharper, cleaner
> and more on screen (I think?). Im no expert...
I understand more resolution means more detail, but it still doesn't
answer my original question.
-Jeff
| |
| Jeff Nowakowski 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| Tom wrote:
quote:
> Play orig xbox on 480p or 1080i, then play 360 on same set at 720p
That's a bad comparison. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the
same 360 game, one on a standard tv and one at 720p? Not that I'm going
to spend the money to get a hi-def tv and a second 360 just to do a
side-by-side experiment.
I have, of course, seen the HD displays of the 360 at stores, and I was
not blown away.
Now compare an original Playstation game vs a PS2 game. I can instantly
tell there's a huge difference. Do the same for an original Xbox game
vs the 360. Is the difference nearly as big? No way. There's a law of
diminishing returns here, one that can only be overcome with hype.
-Jeff
| |
| SINNER 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| * Jeff Nowakowski wrote in microsoft.public.xbox:
quote:
> Why do games need 1080p or even 720p when games lag behind something
> you'd see in a DVD movie on a standard television?
I am not sure I get your question. DVD's are something like 550 lines of
resolution, not quite HD quality. Watch a DVD on a regular TV and then
watch the same DVD using an upconverting DVD player on an HDTV. If you
still don't see a difference head to the doctor.
quote:
> Case in point: I downloaded the Annapolis movie trailer from Live and
> watched it on a standard television. Looked fine to me. I didn't think
> that it was grainy nor did I wish I had a higher resolution.
quote:
> Next I watched the Call of Duty 2 trailer. It was decent, but not even
> close to the movie trailer.
I cant speak to the quality or resolution of either as I haven't seen
them, nor do I own an HDTV to make a local comparison. If you are
wandering into a local electronics store and basing your opinion on what
you see it is no wonder you are uninformed.
Ask these questions in a forum more suited to explain all the technical
details and I am sure you can be convinced that the difference is much
greater than you have seen.
--
David
All summer long <--> Small loner mug
-- anagrama
| |
| Jeff Nowakowski 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| SINNER wrote:
quote:
> * Jeff Nowakowski wrote in microsoft.public.xbox:
>
>
>
> I am not sure I get your question. DVD's are something like 550 lines of
> resolution, not quite HD quality. Watch a DVD on a regular TV and then
> watch the same DVD using an upconverting DVD player on an HDTV. If you
> still don't see a difference head to the doctor.
Indeed, you do not understand the question. Forget that 720p even
exists for the moment. Watch a DVD on a standard television, the ones
they've been selling for decades. Notice how the detail is realistic.
People look like people. Objects blend in with their environments. You
don't notice jaggies, polygons, etc.
Now, on the same television, play a next-gen 360 game, like Call of Duty
2. Do people look like people, or manicans? Can you see the polygons
they are made of? Is the lighting completely natural, so that objects
blend in perfectly with their environments?
How would moving to a higher resolution fix the above problems?
Now, I agree if you are using a big-screen tv that having more
resolution will definitely look better, but I doubt you will get much
improvement on something less than 30".
quote:
> Ask these questions in a forum more suited to explain all the technical
> details and I am sure you can be convinced that the difference is much
> greater than you have seen.
I was interested in the common person's views. Besides, technical
people hang out here too, so if there was some technical
misunderstanding on my part then I should have gotten a response. I
haven't.
-Jeff
| |
| SINNER 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| * Jeff Nowakowski wrote in microsoft.public.xbox:
quote:
> SINNER wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Indeed, you do not understand the question. Forget that 720p even
> exists for the moment. Watch a DVD on a standard television, the ones
> they've been selling for decades. Notice how the detail is realistic.
> People look like people. Objects blend in with their environments. You
> don't notice jaggies, polygons, etc.
quote:
> Now, on the same television, play a next-gen 360 game, like Call of Duty
> 2. Do people look like people, or manicans? Can you see the polygons
> they are made of? Is the lighting completely natural, so that objects
> blend in perfectly with their environments?
quote:
> How would moving to a higher resolution fix the above problems?
You are comparing apples to oranges. You want computer generated images
to rival humans in a movie?
A regualr TV is not capable of progressive display, that alone makes a
huge difference in the same image. Skipping lines of resolution dosent
seem like it would be a worse picture to you without having to actually
see it?
[...]
--
David
All the men on my staff can type.
-- Bella Abzug
| |
| Badass Scotsman 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| > I understand more resolution means more detail, but it still doesn't
quote:
> answer my original question.
To keep it simple, HDTV gaming look a lot better than standard def gaming,
but gaming in general is years away from being ultra realistic. I think
Fight Night 3 comes close 
Badass.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Jeff Nowakowski <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
quote:
> Now, on the same television, play a next-gen 360 game, like Call of Duty
> 2. Do people look like people, or manicans? Can you see the polygons
> they are made of? Is the lighting completely natural, so that objects
> blend in perfectly with their environments?
quote:
> How would moving to a higher resolution fix the above problems?
Ah, you're talking about the quality of the graphics, as opposed to the
display technology.
No, in-game graphics aren't photo-realistic. They're not even as detailed
as a typical high budgeted animated feature. They are, however, getting
better.
Higher resolutions allow for more detailed models, which will get us
closer to the photo-realism you want from games.
True photo-realism is probably a good 40 years away. So you can either
wait, or enjoy the games of today.
| |
| Jeff Nowakowski 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> Higher resolutions allow for more detailed models, which will get us
> closer to the photo-realism you want from games.
But don't you see the logical problem with this statement? The old
resolution TVs can display lifelike images, meaning the capability of
the device is *already* there. How is adding more resolution going to
help when the current resolution is already sufficient and being
under-utilized?
quote:
> True photo-realism is probably a good 40 years away. So you can either
> wait, or enjoy the games of today.
I'm not critiquing the games; I accept their limitations. I was just
questioning the hype over high-definition TVs and next-gen gaming.
-Jeff
| |
| Badass Scotsman 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:FgNIf.247$dW5.24@fe02.lga...
quote:
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
> But don't you see the logical problem with this statement? The old
> resolution TVs can display lifelike images, meaning the capability of the
> device is *already* there. How is adding more resolution going to help
> when the current resolution is already sufficient and being
> under-utilized?
>
>
> I'm not critiquing the games; I accept their limitations. I was just
> questioning the hype over high-definition TVs and next-gen gaming.
>
> -Jeff
OK, try and keep up. Its quite simple. Lets take 1 console (The Xbox 360)
and two very similar TV's in size and style, but one running STANDARD DEF
(OLD), and one running HIGH DEF (NEW).
Generic TV 1 & Standard Def, hooked up to Xbox 360 = Looks great.
Generic TV 2 & High Def, hooked up to Xbox 360 = Looks freaking awsome,
amazing - excellent. Looks Waaaaay better than standard def.
If you have a PC and a 3D shooter, try playing in 640 x 480, followed by a
session in 1024 x 768. There's your difference.
Man you really are stupid.
Badass.
| |
| Rick Mogstad 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:FgNIf.247$dW5.24@fe02.lga...
quote:
>
> But don't you see the logical problem with this statement? The old
> resolution TVs can display lifelike images, meaning the capability of the
> device is *already* there. How is adding more resolution going to help
> when the current resolution is already sufficient and being
> under-utilized?
Humans look a TON better in HD too....
I bought an Xbox 360, then bought an HDTV. I can tell you, there is a
massive difference. When i was playing it on my old SDTV, my wife said
"Wow, Im not impressed at all", now she is definitely impressed. Not bad
since she is really only into how the games look, and not how they play.
| |
| Jeff Nowakowski 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Badass Scotsman wrote:
quote:
> Generic TV 1 & Standard Def, hooked up to Xbox 360 = Looks great.
> Generic TV 2 & High Def, hooked up to Xbox 360 = Looks freaking awsome,
> amazing - excellent. Looks Waaaaay better than standard def.
Of course this is subjective. Your personal experience is based on a
50" television, for which I readily admit needs a higher resolution. My
personal experience is based on my standard 27" CRT television vs what
I've seen in the 360 kiosks. I suppose the only thing that would
convince me would be to buy a 27" hi-def TV and *another* 360, so that I
could compare the same game side-by-side. Not gonna happen.
quote:
> If you have a PC and a 3D shooter, try playing in 640 x 480, followed by a
> session in 1024 x 768. There's your difference.
I won't take that analogy at face value, for the simple reason that I'm
sitting directly in front of the PC monitor, which is not the case for
the TV.
-Jeff
| |
| Rick Mogstad 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Rick Mogstad" <rick.mogstad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X7KdnXmQ19MuQWTeRVn-pg@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
> news:FgNIf.247$dW5.24@fe02.lga...
>
> Humans look a TON better in HD too....
>
> I bought an Xbox 360, then bought an HDTV. I can tell you, there is a
> massive difference. When i was playing it on my old SDTV, my wife said
> "Wow, Im not impressed at all", now she is definitely impressed. Not bad
> since she is really only into how the games look, and not how they play.
Also, just to diffuse your point, I went from a 25" SDTV to a 30" widescreen
HDTV.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Badass Scotsman <badass@ismygamertag.com> wrote:
quote:
> Generic TV 1 & Standard Def, hooked up to Xbox 360 = Looks great.
> Generic TV 2 & High Def, hooked up to Xbox 360 = Looks freaking awsome,
> amazing - excellent. Looks Waaaaay better than standard def.
But his point is that even a DVD on a standard def TV "looks better" than any
game on the market. Understand that his definition of "looks better"
means more photo-realistic.
It's not that he's denying that a game on a HD set looks better than on a SD
set, but that the graphics still don't resemble a live-action movie or TV
episode.
For example, he wants GTA:Vice City to look just like an episode of Miami
Vice.
While HD will make games look better, it's not going to make COD2 look
like Saving Private Ryan.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Jeff Nowakowski <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
quote:
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> But don't you see the logical problem with this statement? The old
> resolution TVs can display lifelike images, meaning the capability of
> the device is *already* there. How is adding more resolution going to
> help when the current resolution is already sufficient and being
> under-utilized?
It's not really a problem when you consider what a game is versus a movie.
The movie's source material, film, is actually a lot higher resolution
than any display is capable of handling. When you're watching a movie,
you're really just watching a bunch of low-resolution photographs.
Games, however, work differently. Each and every pixel on the screen has
to be calculated by the computer. While great strides have been made in
computer graphics and computer animation, today's computers are still far,
far away from being able to render photo-realistic images fast enough to
fool our eyes into thinking there's true movement going on. If you watch
the 'making of...' featurettes for films like Toy Story or Finding Nemo,
you'll see them refer to large machine rooms filled with stack after stack
of servers dedicated to rendering the film one frame at a time.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'm not critiquing the games; I accept their limitations. I was just
> questioning the hype over high-definition TVs and next-gen gaming.
Well, within the realm of game technology, the jump from SD to HD is a big
deal because you're pushing around a lot more pixels. More pixels mean
more detail. While you'll never mistake COD2 for 'Saving Private Ryan'
you have to admit that COD2 looks a lot more realistic than the old arcade
game, Commando.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Rick Mogstad <rick.mogstad@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> Humans look a TON better in HD too....
Well, sometimes:
http://www.tvsquad.com/2005/12/05/t...y-side-of-hdtv/
Seriously, there's talk that the switch to HDTV will force the cosmetics
industry to redo their products so that celebrities will still look their
best even in HD.
quote:
> I bought an Xbox 360, then bought an HDTV. I can tell you, there is a
> massive difference. When i was playing it on my old SDTV, my wife said
> "Wow, Im not impressed at all", now she is definitely impressed. Not bad
> since she is really only into how the games look, and not how they play.
I fear for this generation of consoles if the only thing they can bring to
the table is "better graphics." After all, look at COD2 - it's just
another WW2 shooter. There's really nothing new or special about it other
than its graphics look a little better than its predecessors.
| |
| Jeff Nowakowski 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> Well, within the realm of game technology, the jump from SD to HD is a big
> deal because you're pushing around a lot more pixels. More pixels mean
> more detail. While you'll never mistake COD2 for 'Saving Private Ryan'
> you have to admit that COD2 looks a lot more realistic than the old arcade
> game, Commando.
Commando is 20 years old. How much better does COD2 in hi-def look
than, say, Star Wars Battlefront on the original Xbox?
-Jeff
| |
|
| > I fear for this generation of consoles if the only thing they can bring to
quote:
> the table is "better graphics." After all, look at COD2 - it's just
> another WW2 shooter. There's really nothing new or special about it other
> than its graphics look a little better than its predecessors.
-So? Going from:
486 + 2D VGA card = Doom
to
Pentium 4 + GeForce 7900 = Doom 3
There's still nothing new or special! It's still just a fps with better
graphics and sound. Going from original b&w King Kong to new King Kong is
_still_ just better "graphics and sound".
Compare an original T-Ford with a new Ford GT. It's still four tires and a
steering wheel!
New consoles aren't gonna radically change how or what games are made, or
change the foundations of games any more than a new CPU or video card is
gonna do it on a PC.
This is pretty basic stuff. Anyone who thought/thinks that new consoles
(PS3, 360, Revolution) will change games completely in some magical way are
just kidding themselves.
And no, PS4, XBox720 etc isn't gonna change it either. There are no "huge
jumps" in video gaming (and there really never has been).
Some might say that b&w -> colour, mono -> stereo or 2D -> 3D where huge
innovations, but they really weren't, just small evolutional steps (=better
graphics/sound that look a little better than the predecessors).
| |
| Badass Scotsman 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| > This is pretty basic stuff. Anyone who thought/thinks that new consoles
quote:
> (PS3, 360, Revolution) will change games completely in some magical way
> are
> just kidding themselves.
The Revolution is at an attempt ;)
Badass.
| |
| Badass Scotsman 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| > Commando is 20 years old. How much better does COD2 in hi-def look than,
quote:
> say, Star Wars Battlefront on the original Xbox?
A whole heck of a lot better.
Badass.
| |
| Tim Bird 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Badass Scotsman" <badass@ismygamertag.com> wrote in message
news:dthjfs$g5l$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk...
quote:
>
>
>
> A whole heck of a lot better.
Agreed - I have both my 360 and my original box linked up to my HDTV and can
look at both side to side or switch between them for comparison. COD2 is far
and away better looking, even more so when you look at some of the graphical
effects (smoke - heat haze, etc). Though gameplay wise I'd have to say that
SWBF is better. The 360 looks better. Better games? Not yet.
| |
| Badass Scotsman 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| > Agreed - I have both my 360 and my original box linked up to my HDTV and
quote:
> can look at both side to side or switch between them for comparison. COD2
> is far and away better looking, even more so when you look at some of the
> graphical effects (smoke - heat haze, etc). Though gameplay wise I'd have
> to say that SWBF is better. The 360 looks better. Better games? Not yet.
Not played much of Star Ward Battle Front (or whetever its called), but COD2
is by far my favourite single player shooter ever.
My top shooters:
Call of Duty 2 Xbox 360 (The PC version is nowhere near as good Single
Player)
Half Life 2 PC (A very close call, this is an amazing game, if a little
short)
Half Life PC (Too dated to rate as number 1 now, but this held the crown for
a very very long time)
Quake 3 PC (Strictly Multiplayer of course)
Quake 4 PC - amazing single player (PC), not tried MultiPlayer.
Unreal Tournament 2003 PC
Star Trek Voyager Elite Force PC
Shooters I should but dont like:
Halo
Halo 2
Metroid Prime 1 / 2
Counterstrike
Most Medal of Honour games
Quake 1 & 2
Doom 3
Badass.
| |
| Tim Bird 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Badass Scotsman" <badass@ismygamertag.com> wrote in message
news:dthmea$r3v$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
quote:
>
> My top shooters:
>
> Call of Duty 2 Xbox 360 (The PC version is nowhere near as good Single
> Player)
> Half Life 2 PC (A very close call, this is an amazing game, if a little
> short)
> Half Life PC (Too dated to rate as number 1 now, but this held the crown
> for a very very long time)
> Quake 3 PC (Strictly Multiplayer of course)
> Quake 4 PC - amazing single player (PC), not tried MultiPlayer.
> Unreal Tournament 2003 PC
> Star Trek Voyager Elite Force PC
>
> Shooters I should but dont like:
>
> Halo
> Halo 2
> Metroid Prime 1 / 2
> Counterstrike
> Most Medal of Honour games
> Quake 1 & 2
> Doom 3
>
> Badass.
My list would be
Call of Cthulhu - DCOE - (if that's a FPS) - I'm a Lovecraft reader and fan!
Halo
Half Life 2 - Agreed - far too short - I felt slightly cheated at the end.
Half Life - Agreed - when will another FPS break such new ground?
Counterstrike
COD 2
Halo 2
Star Trek Voyager Elite Force
UT 2003
Condemned (if that's a FPS)
Honourable mentions to Duke Nukem and Serious Sam.
Similar - if slightly different.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Jeff Nowakowski <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
quote:
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Commando is 20 years old.
That was my point ;) Although I guess I should have used Operation Wolf
to have a more fair comparison...
quote:
> How much better does COD2 in hi-def look
> than, say, Star Wars Battlefront on the original Xbox?
It looks better, but it's probably not going to knock your socks off. One
of the problems I see with the upcoming generation. The graphics look
better, but they aren't THAT much better. When the PS2 came out and I saw
SSX and DOA, those graphics knocked my socks off. This was obviously
something that the PS1 could never dream of touching. But looking at XBox
to 360, even on HD, I can see an improvement, but it's no where near the
leap I saw going from the PS1 to the PS2.
| |
| Mothra 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
quote:
> Badass Scotsman wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course this is subjective. Your personal experience is based on a
> 50" television, for which I readily admit needs a higher resolution. My
> personal experience is based on my standard 27" CRT television vs what
> I've seen in the 360 kiosks. I suppose the only thing that would
> convince me would be to buy a 27" hi-def TV and *another* 360, so that I
> could compare the same game side-by-side. Not gonna happen.
>
That is the mistake you are making. I was similarly underwhelmed by the
cheap & nasty HD LCD screens in the kiosks. First of all, yhey
represent the bottom end of the market in HD Television and, secondly,
they're LCD which is not great for fast moving images or constrast
definition (how black the blacks look).
Then I bought a Panasonic 37" HD Plasma screen and seeing the Xbox 360
running on that in 720p was a revelation. The colours a far richer than
they are on a CRT, everything is far sharper, clearer. You can see the
graphics as the developers intended. Does it look more realistic? Not
as such; the experience is more akin to getting in your car to drive to
work and finding the windscreen all fogged-up. So you blast the
air-conditioned heat onto it for a few seconds and suddenly you can see
everything clearly. *That's* what HD TV is all about.
Nevertheless, Project Gotham Racing 3 and Need For Speed: Most Wanted do
look utterly realistic. Games like CoD 2 and Perfect Dark Zero are
always going to be weak on the realism front, as their characters are
heavily stylised; however, CoD 2 *does* look more realistic when shown
in 720p on a good quality HD TV because clearer and sharper is what real
life is - not blurry and flickery like an old-fashioned CRT screen.
The downside is that I can now bearly watch anything on a regular,
blurry 50/60Hz CRT TV and don't even get me started on the grainy 24fps
flickervision you get at the cinema - I'll be downloading all my movies
from now until (until they're released on DVD that is).
quote:
>
>
> I won't take that analogy at face value, for the simple reason that I'm
> sitting directly in front of the PC monitor, which is not the case for
> the TV.
>
Hmmm.. where *do* you sit in relation to your TV then? At a 45 degree
angle? Maybe that's your problem.
| |
| Mothra 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
quote:
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
>
>
> But don't you see the logical problem with this statement? The old
> resolution TVs can display lifelike images, meaning the capability of
> the device is *already* there.
I disagree completely with that statement. You only say that because
you've gotten used to a CRT TV. Once you're used to HD TV, you
willbearly be able to watch a CRT TV again.
quote:
> How is adding more resolution going to
> help when the current resolution is already sufficient and being
> under-utilized?
>
It's not being under-utilized. Standard definition is incapable of
displaying the kinds of HD pictures that have been possible for several
years.
quote:
>
I suggest you play Project Gotham Racing 3 on a good quality HD Plasma
TV and see if you still think the same.
quote:
>
> I'm not critiquing the games; I accept their limitations. I was just
> questioning the hype over high-definition TVs and next-gen gaming.
>
They are two loosely-coupled but nevertheless seperate things. HD
Television will bring clearer, sharper and more realistic pictures into
our living rooms than we have ever had before.
Next Generation gaming will increase polygon counts, which will in turn
bring more realism to games. Consider the difference between PGR3 and
driving games on previous consoles: In previous driving games, all the
spectators were rarely polygon characters and when they were, they were
very low in number. In other games, the spectators were effectively
cardboard cut-outs, sometimes animated a little. In Project Gotham 3,
everyone in the crowd is a properly rendered ploygon character, and
there's hundreds of them! That's where you get closer to realism.
| |
| Jeff Nowakowski 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Mothra wrote:
quote:
> Then I bought a Panasonic 37" HD Plasma screen and seeing the Xbox 360
> running on that in 720p was a revelation. The colours a far richer than
> they are on a CRT, everything is far sharper, clearer.
A model like this?
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wc...40&itemId=93337
quote:
> The colours a far richer than they are on a CRT, everything is far
> sharper, clearer.
After paying a couple of thousand for a TV, isn't it possible you are a
bit biased? I know it's sharper and clearer, but after seeing all the
displays in the shops (plasma included), to me it just doesn't live up
to the hype. Another possibility is that some people are more sensitive
to this kind of thing, similar to audiophiles. Or maybe it's just me.
Whatever. I agree to disagree with the high-def enthusiasts. You guys
think it's totally amazing, and I accept that.
quote:
>
> Hmmm.. where *do* you sit in relation to your TV then? At a 45 degree
> angle? Maybe that's your problem.
I meant distance, not the angle.
-Jeff
| |
| Rick Mogstad 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Mothra" <mothra@mothra.com> wrote in message
news:DteLf.6926$Id3.6351@fe04.news.easynews.com...
quote:
>
> Then I bought a Panasonic 37" HD Plasma screen and seeing the Xbox 360
> running on that in 720p was a revelation. The colours a far richer than
> they are on a CRT, everything is far sharper, clearer.
I assume by this you mean a non HD CRT? even in HD, CRT still produces the
crispest most accurate picture.
| |
| Badass Scotsman 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| > After paying a couple of thousand for a TV, isn't it possible you are a
quote:
> bit biased? I know it's sharper and clearer, but after seeing all the
> displays in the shops (plasma included), to me it just doesn't live up to
> the hype.
You have NOT seen the right setup then. The difference is night and day,
and if you cant see it your blind.
Badass.
| |
| Rick Mogstad 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Mothra" <mothra@mothra.com> wrote in message
news:GOeLf.109576$K35.9655@fe05.news.easynews.com...
quote:
> I disagree completely with that statement. You only say that because
> you've gotten used to a CRT TV. Once you're used to HD TV, you willbearly
> be able to watch a CRT TV again.
I assume by CRT you really mean an SDTV?
| |
| Rob R. Ainscough 2006-03-01, 3:15 am |
| Jeff, if you spend time watching true HD broadcast 1080i, you will
understand.
More resolution is more information in the image, more information is more
realistic.
HD you notice things that you'll never even see on standard TV.
and if you start to compare that to a PC that runs 1920 x 1600 which is even
more realistic than HDTV's best offering.
Lifelike images?? Are you serious? -- no TV produces "lifelike" images --
is you vision impaired or something? Just walk outside and notice the
detail you see, now walk back in a notice the detail you don't see on your
standard TV image.
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeffno@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:FgNIf.247$dW5.24@fe02.lga...
quote:
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
> But don't you see the logical problem with this statement? The old
> resolution TVs can display lifelike images, meaning the capability of the
> device is *already* there. How is adding more resolution going to help
> when the current resolution is already sufficient and being
> under-utilized?
>
>
> I'm not critiquing the games; I accept their limitations. I was just
> questioning the hype over high-definition TVs and next-gen gaming.
>
> -Jeff
|
| |
|
|