|
Home > Archive > Xbox forum > September 2006 > HDTV resolutions
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]
|
|
|
| I'm thinking about getting a new hdtv (LCD). But...I'm confused about the
resolutions. Several models have a resolution of 1366 x 768. Why`? That's
not any hdtv standard, as far as I know? And if I use XBox 360 with that the
screen will be upscaled (720 -> 768) and the result is bad, since that's not
native resolution for the tv. Same thing if I buy a super expensive 1920 x
1080 tv, XBox (and normal DVD resolution) will be upscaled, so the end
result is that the more expensive TV I get, the worst picture I will get (as
a result of more upscaling).
If I buy a "cheap" hdtv, I'll get a bad picture when HDDVD/BluRay finally
arrive, since they use either 720 or 1080 resolution, and that would mean I
would need a 1920 x 1080 tv.
So if I understand correctly, no matter which model I get...it's either bad
picture for the console, or bad picture for the next gen video format?
| |
| Silvio3d 2006-08-24, 7:43 pm |
|
"msgs" <mikael.sillman@elisanet.POISTA.fi> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:74IGg.9338$Fo4.7026@reader1.news.jippii.net...
quote:
> I'm thinking about getting a new hdtv (LCD). But...I'm confused about the
> resolutions. Several models have a resolution of 1366 x 768. Why`? That's
> not any hdtv standard, as far as I know? And if I use XBox 360 with that
> the
1366 x 768 is a PC standard and if you use the VGA output of xbox 360 is
perfect
| |
|
|
msgs wrote:
quote:
> I'm thinking about getting a new hdtv (LCD). But...I'm confused about the
> resolutions. Several models have a resolution of 1366 x 768. Why`? That's
> not any hdtv standard, as far as I know? And if I use XBox 360 with that the
> screen will be upscaled (720 -> 768) and the result is bad, since that's not
> native resolution for the tv. Same thing if I buy a super expensive 1920 x
> 1080 tv, XBox (and normal DVD resolution) will be upscaled, so the end
> result is that the more expensive TV I get, the worst picture I will get (as
> a result of more upscaling).
>
> If I buy a "cheap" hdtv, I'll get a bad picture when HDDVD/BluRay finally
> arrive, since they use either 720 or 1080 resolution, and that would mean I
> would need a 1920 x 1080 tv.
>
> So if I understand correctly, no matter which model I get...it's either bad
> picture for the console, or bad picture for the next gen video format?
I wouldn't use the word "bad" . Sure, in theory it's best to display
source material that directly fits your TV's native resolution but most
TV's today have very good scaling abilities and there won't be a
noticable loss in quality due to scaling. HD TV broadcasts vary from
720p and 1080i anyway, so your TV (or converter box) is constantly
doing conversions but most of the time you don't notice a difference.
Go to the store and tell them to let you view ESPNHD (720p) and then
INHD or CBS HD (1080i) on the TV. I bet you won't see any noticeable
difference and the picture will look great on either channel.
| |
| Anthony 2006-08-29, 7:42 pm |
| Two options
720p with any cable
1368*768 with a VGA cable, NOTE: Means you need VGA input on your LCD TV
Bypasses Scalling.
Try a large computer warehouse/store in your area for something with VGA. I
picked up a 32" ViewSonic LCD with a VGA input from a local computer store.
CRISPY!
"msgs" wrote:
quote:
> I'm thinking about getting a new hdtv (LCD). But...I'm confused about the
> resolutions. Several models have a resolution of 1366 x 768. Why`? That's
> not any hdtv standard, as far as I know? And if I use XBox 360 with that the
> screen will be upscaled (720 -> 768) and the result is bad, since that's not
> native resolution for the tv. Same thing if I buy a super expensive 1920 x
> 1080 tv, XBox (and normal DVD resolution) will be upscaled, so the end
> result is that the more expensive TV I get, the worst picture I will get (as
> a result of more upscaling).
>
> If I buy a "cheap" hdtv, I'll get a bad picture when HDDVD/BluRay finally
> arrive, since they use either 720 or 1080 resolution, and that would mean I
> would need a 1920 x 1080 tv.
>
> So if I understand correctly, no matter which model I get...it's either bad
> picture for the console, or bad picture for the next gen video format?
>
>
>
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-09-01, 7:37 pm |
| msgs <mikael.sillman@elisanet.poista.fi> wrote:
quote:
> I'm thinking about getting a new hdtv (LCD). But...I'm confused about the
> resolutions. Several models have a resolution of 1366 x 768. Why`? That's
> not any hdtv standard, as far as I know? And if I use XBox 360 with that the
> screen will be upscaled (720 -> 768) and the result is bad, since that's not
> native resolution for the tv. Same thing if I buy a super expensive 1920 x
> 1080 tv, XBox (and normal DVD resolution) will be upscaled, so the end
> result is that the more expensive TV I get, the worst picture I will get (as
> a result of more upscaling).
There are 3 HDTV resolutions I know of:
768p - this is the 1366x768 you mention. The "p" is for progressive
scan. This is the same as non-interlaced. Your standard TV resolution is
interlaced, meaning each pass only draws in every-other line. Progressive
scan/non-interlaced means every line is drawn in on every pass, resulting
in a sharper, more 'solid' picture.
1080i - 1080 horizontal lines, but interlaced.
1080p - same as above, but progressive scan/non-interlaced. Only the
higher end sets will support this mode, but unless you're really worried
about buying a set that's as future-proof as possible, 1080i will probably
be plenty good enough. Right now, there are no 1080p sources.
Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players will eventually support this mode, but current players
only do 1080i.
The 360 supports 768p and 1080i. The PS3 might support 1080p, but I'm not
sure...
Anyways, my reccomendation:
If you want the very latest in HDTV technology that will have the best
chance of lasting the longest, I'd wait awhile longer for sets to start
including HDMI 1.3. This will give you the best possible picture, while
also being required (eventually) for HD-DVD/Blu-ray movies' ICT Flag
(DRM) Other connectors will still work, but won't be allowed to display
these movies at their full resolution. Supposedly, this won't won't be an
issue until 2010 or so, but i wouldn't bet on it.
If you don't mind going with something not so-high-end, or don't mind
buying another TV within a few years, I'd go with a 1080i set now. Many
of them come with HDMI, but may not satisfy the eventual DRM
requirements. But then, in 5 years or so, 1080p sets will be commonplace
and cheaper. You could "demote" your older set to the bedroom or
something.
| |
|
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> But then, in 5 years or so, 1080p sets will be commonplace
> and cheaper. You could "demote" your older set to the bedroom or
> something.
A 720p TV is a perfect buy right now and I don't see why it would have
to be demoted in 5 years. What you are viewing right now on TV
broadcast in 720p and 1080i is not going to look much, if any,
different on a 1080p TV. And believe me, TV broadcast will not be
going to 1080p anytime soon; not in 5 years, not even 10 years. The
only pure 1080p content will be a handfull of video games, and blu-ray
movies, but honestly I don't think movies benefit from higher
resolution than 720p\1080i since movies rely on color and lighting and
artistic effects instead of resolution. 1080p just seems overrated to
me.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-09-05, 8:13 pm |
| Tom <tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
> A 720p TV is a perfect buy right now and I don't see why it would have
> to be demoted in 5 years. What you are viewing right now on TV
> broadcast in 720p and 1080i is not going to look much, if any,
> different on a 1080p TV. And believe me, TV broadcast will not be
> going to 1080p anytime soon; not in 5 years, not even 10 years. The
> only pure 1080p content will be a handfull of video games, and blu-ray
> movies, but honestly I don't think movies benefit from higher
> resolution than 720p\1080i since movies rely on color and lighting and
> artistic effects instead of resolution. 1080p just seems overrated to
> me.
With the confusion over HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, DRM, and HDMI madness, the more I
think about it, the more I'm convinced that it just makes sense to buy a
low or mid-range TV *NOW* rather than wait a year or 2 to buy something
ultra-high end.
So, I'm thinking of buying something in the 40-50" range, LCD (RP is OK),
maybe in the $2000-2500 range. Any suggestions?
| |
|
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
>
> With the confusion over HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, DRM, and HDMI madness, the more I
> think about it, the more I'm convinced that it just makes sense to buy a
> low or mid-range TV *NOW* rather than wait a year or 2 to buy something
> ultra-high end.
That's why I bought now instead of waiting. My 46" Samsung 720p DLP
was only $1,500. For 720p\1080i TV's the prices are not going to fall
by thousands of dollars like in the past, maybe the price will fall by
$500 at most in a couple years. That's not worth waiting for. It's
not like it used to be years ago where a $4000 TV would fall to $2500.
That kind of price fall is worth waiting for but HDTV's are now low
enough in price you might as well just buy now. The only reason to
wait is if you really want a 1080p TV, then you might save $1000 or
more in a year or two by waiting but is 1080p worth waiting for? I
don't think so.
| |
| Joseph Chew 2006-09-08, 3:18 am |
|
Tom wrote:
quote:
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
> That's why I bought now instead of waiting. My 46" Samsung 720p DLP
> was only $1,500. For 720p\1080i TV's the prices are not going to fall
> by thousands of dollars like in the past, maybe the price will fall by
> $500 at most in a couple years. That's not worth waiting for. It's
> not like it used to be years ago where a $4000 TV would fall to $2500.
> That kind of price fall is worth waiting for but HDTV's are now low
> enough in price you might as well just buy now. The only reason to
> wait is if you really want a 1080p TV, then you might save $1000 or
> more in a year or two by waiting but is 1080p worth waiting for? I
> don't think so.
I just plonked down about $1,500 for a Samsung 42" Plasma.....felt
confident that the 720p will hold up to scrutiny for a long while.
Also, I guess if all I am going for is 720p, I guess HDMI v1.3 (which
incidentally claims to double the bandwidth) is good but not really
necessary. All HDMI versions from v1.0 are designed to be able to take
the full bandwidth of 720p/1080p anyway. It was a hard choice between
LCD and Plasma but what finally convinced me was the more natural color
of plasma compared to the more vibrant color of LCD. And also plasma
is still a more mature technology and I won't having blurring problems
with fast moving pictures. As for burn-in...well...newer plasmas have
taken considerable steps to minimise the problems and as long as I
treat the Plasma with care I guess it shouldn't be a problem for me.
| |
| Tom Scales 2006-09-08, 7:52 pm |
|
"Joseph Chew" <josephchew04@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157690487.705350.124140@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> I just plonked down about $1,500 for a Samsung 42" Plasma.....felt
> confident that the 720p will hold up to scrutiny for a long while.
> Also, I guess if all I am going for is 720p, I guess HDMI v1.3 (which
> incidentally claims to double the bandwidth) is good but not really
> necessary. All HDMI versions from v1.0 are designed to be able to take
> the full bandwidth of 720p/1080p anyway. It was a hard choice between
> LCD and Plasma but what finally convinced me was the more natural color
> of plasma compared to the more vibrant color of LCD. And also plasma
> is still a more mature technology and I won't having blurring problems
> with fast moving pictures. As for burn-in...well...newer plasmas have
> taken considerable steps to minimise the problems and as long as I
> treat the Plasma with care I guess it shouldn't be a problem for me.
>
I went the other route and for $1800 bought the LG 42" LCD. I'm very
pleased with it and the games are stunning.
Tom
|
| |
|
|