Fuzzmosis said: Odd question: If this be true, how can marketers be getting away with the advertising in these formats, or is there no technical specs or limitations on the P/I formatting? I.E. what's up with this? I proudly admit my ignorance in this area, yet desire to know, because if this is true, then most people proudly boasting their knowledge on games in HDalso knew about as much as me. Which is hilarious, and bad.

From my extremely limited knowledge of the subject. I believe it was decided (I forget by who if I'm even right) originally both 720p and 1080i were HD resolutions, but it couldn't be settled which would be the standard, so there's simply both of them. Now we have 1080p as well, so that makes three. Then I've been told there's "TrueHD" and my TV isn't, and after that I just kinda said fuck it.

HD in my experience is simply a bigger damn picture. Like going from a thumbnail to a full sized image, you went to a HIGHER RESOLUTION of the same image. For computer screens you’re typically sitting less than a foot away and the image appears much bigger, so the higher resolutions are generally helpful. You up the resolution on your desktop it doesn’t scale the icons and pictures (kept maybe your wallpaper) so they appear smaller because it’s now on a higher resolution.

With a TV the image always has to fill the whole screen, which in HD sets SD signals get blown up and stretched out to fill the screen. On a computer it’ll play an SD video in a smaller window so to display it at it’s actual size. Switching it to full screen is more like what a TV would do. The picture actually isn’t that big so it’s scaled up and false details are filled in.

Typically SD looks like crap on HD sets because many HD sets can’t scale worth a damn, where as you were to put the image on an SD set of similar size, it’d look better because it’s built for that image size and doesn’t have to adjust it.

Now quality upscaling can take a lot of the ugly out of blown up SD images. In fact the 360 itself is probably the best damn upscale DVD player I’ve tried yet. Yeah it’s not HD, but it looks awesome, so screw it. This way I don’t have to rebuy my DVD collection on a more expensive media that’s split into two damn formats.

Whole thing gives me a damn headache. I don’t even know if what I said was even accurate, probably not. But I can’t be made to care, it’s easier to just forget about it for ten years and wait for them to sort all this crap out. =P

In response to your orginal question, I guess you can say it is false advertising since the machines are upscaling 
from a resolution lower than these vaguely established HD standards. 

 

Yep my LCD computer monitor says HD grade, and its at 480p. Wikipedia is full of false information.

LordTheNightKnight said: The fact is that neither the PS3, nor the 360 has a particularly large frame buffer. The 360 has 10MB of very fast memory for the frame buffer (with bandwidth 10 times that of the rest of the RAM). The PS3 can reasonably just use 128MB of memory before it leaves too little for the frame buffer. That's not a lot of memory, when you consider all the graphics the frame buffer has to convert into visual data. If the systems had at least twice as much memory for the frame buffer, 1080p would be a reasonable resolution. As it is, around 720p is best for large scale games, saving 1080p for games with not that much going on.

I would disagree to an extent. Lair is a very good example of a lot going on at once with a stable framrate and 1080P. I think with a little more time, 1080P is going to be easy for devs to accomplish.

This is an interesting question. I know there are requirements for video displays to be called "HD ready," but they don't seem to be particularly stringent. (It needs to display at least 720 lines of vertical resolution, but there's no requirement for horizontal resolution).

As for HD signals, I haven't been able to find anything. I know that a lot of TV networks who broadcast "HD" versions of their stations often show less than 50% actual HD content, with no apparent repercussions. Obviously, the games industry is pulling the same kind of trickery. The terms 720p and 1080p do denote specific h*v resolutions (1280*720 and 1920*1080), but as far as I can tell these are just accepted technical definitions with no legal muscle to back them up.

It's a definite problem. We can see the abuse happening here, and there's potential for a lot more. Seems that there need to be some actual regulations put in place to enforce this stuff.

leo-j said: Yep my LCD computer monitor says HD grade, and its at 480p. Wikipedia is full of false information.

You were fooled. That's just a tag slapped on some 480p sets so people think they are HD. They are just enhanced definition with a false label. You will still get great looking games on it, since the only difference between HD and ED is resolution (just stick with DVD for now). You still get all the other standards: component input (and possibly DVI and HDMI), widescreen, digital signal, and progressive scan. But you it's not part of the HD standards.

 

"I would disagree to an extent. Lair is a very good example of a lot going on at once with a stable framrate and 1080P. I think with a little more time, 1080P is going to be easy for devs to accomplish."

I don't know how you are playing it, but Lair is not acknowleged to have a smooth framerate. It's considered choppy as hell. 

@lord

Its from HP, its a computer monitor,19"

1440x 900(is 480p?)

They usually dont fool people cost me 250 buks.

I have an HD tv thats 720p dam I love playing that thing at night especially with fps, they looks so real!

Legend11 said: I just don't get people who put down the graphics, resolutions, etc in games on the PS3 and 360 (especially against the PC) in one post and then in another they'll talk about graphics and HD not being that important when defending the Wii against it's rivals.

It's because those other consoles all they have to offer is HD Graphics, ok not entirely true but High Definition gaming is the selling point of 360 and PS3, and this thread shows us, in short, that they are not actually delivering their promises. On the other hand when talking about the Wii and saying that graphics are not important they say it because graphics is NOT the selling point of the Wii.

Clear enough for you? (Jesus, he's gone insane the last few days...)

Legend11 said: So what are you trying to say Soriku, that games that are less than 720P suck? Are you a graphics whore? If your answer to those two questions is "no" then what's the deal with this thread? Aren't you a Wii fan? Are you going to be bashing all the games on that system because they don't even reach the resolution that your bashing the other systems on, or are you being a hypocrite?

How are you so angry? wtf? He's just pointing out that not all games run at 1080p, despite some being advertised as such. You seriously need to calm down, you make it seem like the PS3 is your wife and Soriku just called her a four-bagger.

480p is 640 x 480. Yours is a little better than 720p.

I don't know if they've made 480p computer monitors since the 80s...

i lol'd at the people that paid for a 1080p