Torino101 Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] The whole HD arguement I dont get - will I see the difference on a non - HD telly? [/ QUOTE ] No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shao_khan Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Cool - so as I dotn own a HD telly I dotn need a consol generating all that extra heat for no reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted November 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] The whole HD arguement I dont get - will I see the difference on a non - HD telly? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torino101 Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The whole HD arguement I dont get - will I see the difference on a non - HD telly? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [/ QUOTE ] How? It will be like the TV is receiving a "perfect" signal - but it can't improve on the original TV's limitations....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted November 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 If you look at a PS2 game and the same game on the 360 both output over scart you will tell straight away which one is the HD one and which one isn't. You will get extra gains by inputting it into an HD display though. I did a demo of dvd being upscaled through a £3500 video processor to 1080p on a 9" CRT projector vs the same film in HD played over D-VHS and out put at 480p. Everyone in the room preferd the 480p version. Resolution helps but it is more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorburn Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Eh. 360 games look better than PS2 games because they generally use higher quality artwork. The 360 will always be rendering internally at 720p (or in some games like PGR3 640p) and then scaling to the correct resolution by the console depending how it is set in its configuration. So play an XBox 360 on a 480p TV and you aren't rendering to it natively, you are DOWNscaling to it. So on a standard resolution TV you aren't gaining anything compared to if the game was actually rendered at 480p, if anything you are losing detail which may have been rendered differently at another resolution (for example text). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torino101 Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have to say that was my understanding of the situation also..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woppum Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 In 2 years there will be alot more of the gaming population with HD tellys. I wonder if Nintendo will still be selling their console then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorburn Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] In 2 years there will be alot more of the gaming population with HD tellys. I wonder if Nintendo will still be selling their console then? [/ QUOTE ] Like I said, if they succeed in selling it to people who don't normally play video games, quite a few. They are not aiming this console at the die hard fans even in two years whats the percentage of HDTV's going to be? The lounge might have a HDTV panel but the kids room almost certainly won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woppum Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 But what I dont get is. If they are aiming at people that dont usually buy vid games... how will they know about this? Even if they do what makes you think they will be intrested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted November 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Eh. 360 games look better than PS2 games because they generally use higher quality artwork. The 360 will always be rendering internally at 720p (or in some games like PGR3 640p) and then scaling to the correct resolution by the console depending how it is set in its configuration. So play an XBox 360 on a 480p TV and you aren't rendering to it natively, you are DOWNscaling to it. So on a standard resolution TV you aren't gaining anything compared to if the game was actually rendered at 480p, if anything you are losing detail which may have been rendered differently at another resolution (for example text). [/ QUOTE ] I understand all that, but what I was getting at is you are still better to get a machine that is 720p capable even if you are not going to use a tv capable of 720p because generally the graphics will be better all round, not just of a higher resolution. Obviously if you have a screen that can pixel map 720p that is perfect because you get the full resoloution and you can bypass the crap processing in the screen, but how may TVs can show it natively?? I bet there are less than a dozen models in the world that can do that. I get what you are saying about downscaling, but most people can't notice downscaling very well. downscaling is very easy for a video output to do, and do well without many artifacts. I bet 90% of people would not be able to tell the difference between an xbox 360 running on a 480p screen and one running on the same brand 720p screen, even with them in the same room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ok, I see where you are coming from, but why cant it offer something different and be high def? When all channels are high def im still going to love the new Spielberg on it, but im equally going to love Family Guy HD. Anyway if it offers something that special, why does it matter it comes out later? [/ QUOTE ] Because creating a 'high-def' image is a lot of processing work. 720p is more than twice the total number of pixels of 480p, and 1080p is double that again. So to move from 480p to 720p you have to have a GPU capable of rendering double the number of pixels (and applying any shader effects, reflection mapping, etc), so you can up the clock speed (which will increase the heat output and reduce yields as fewer chips will make the grade, pushing up the price) or have a more complex chip (more heat, and a larger die size meaning fewer chips to a wafer, reducing yields as a greater chance of a defect in a die and increasing the cost). So you have your more powerful GPU core but now you need to feed it with data. To appear crisp you'll need a higher resolution texture, so you'll need more memory (more money, more heat) and more memory bandwidth (higher clock speed, more money, more heat, see a pattern here?). So now you've substancially increased the cost of the system (in the case of Sony and Microsoft it costs more to build than you sell it for, yes even the incredibly expensive PS3!), you have to make the thing bigger to fit in the larger heatsinks (again more cost) noisy fans (£££) to keep the internals from melting the casing and need a more powerful power supply to drive it all (more money, more heat and bulky, just look at the XBox 360's). [ QUOTE ] Besides, HD isnt about graphics... its about clarity... [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Almost.... They don't use/need higher res textures though really, but GPU overheads are indeed proportional to number of pixels. The main problem with all this, is that the marketing chaps use numbers/statistics to sell these systems, so Joe Bloggs thinks a game with 1080-res graphics must look better than 720 etc. Same as people thinking a 3GHZ cpu is faster than a 2GHZ cpu - depends on the CPU and number of instructions per cycle, and number of pipelines, and ratio between cpu clock and mem clock etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Well im not going to argue in a language i dont understand. I do however find it hard to believe Sony and Microsoft are selling these machines as a loss. That makes no sense, even if games are going for £40-50 a pop. Ok whatever, I can understand you are saying it is far more expensive to make the Wii in HD. But isnt the sad fact of the matter that Nintendo will be vastly hindering the shelf life of this console if they dont add HD? How much more expensive will it be? £50? £100? I wont be interested in it with out HD and my guess is there will be a lot of people who wont be either... especially when the PS3 comes out and the market is both more saturated and competitive. IMO, if Nintendo cant make a proper console, they should stick to making games on the Playbox. Then you get the unique blend of Cartoon graphics, oriental music and old school gameplay. [/ QUOTE ] Thank god we don't use your opinion. Nintendo make mega bucks by selling systems/games that people want to play. After you've played a few of the best Nintendo games, you'll bin your 360, PS3, XXX etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The whole HD arguement I dont get - will I see the difference on a non - HD telly? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [/ QUOTE ] For once, I don't agree with you Gizze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] In 2 years there will be alot more of the gaming population with HD tellys. I wonder if Nintendo will still be selling their console then? [/ QUOTE ] You're getting confused. There's several types of "game player". Nintendo don't give a rats arse about tech leader players - they sell to casual gamers (of which there are many more!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snail Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In 2 years there will be alot more of the gaming population with HD tellys. I wonder if Nintendo will still be selling their console then? [/ QUOTE ] You're getting confused. There's several types of "game player". Nintendo don't give a rats arse about tech leader players - they sell to casual gamers (of which there are many more!) [/ QUOTE ] I have no doubt Nintendo made a very good decision going for SD. I cant imagine there will be many kids with HDTVs for instance. 2 things have shocked me about the PS3 this week, firstly, they are not offering a VGA cable at the moment (so unless your monitor accepts DVI, you need a HDTV to play in HD), and secondly there is a game (i believe its Japan only) that actually wont work on an SD television! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woppum Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well im not going to argue in a language i dont understand. I do however find it hard to believe Sony and Microsoft are selling these machines as a loss. That makes no sense, even if games are going for £40-50 a pop. Ok whatever, I can understand you are saying it is far more expensive to make the Wii in HD. But isnt the sad fact of the matter that Nintendo will be vastly hindering the shelf life of this console if they dont add HD? How much more expensive will it be? £50? £100? I wont be interested in it with out HD and my guess is there will be a lot of people who wont be either... especially when the PS3 comes out and the market is both more saturated and competitive. IMO, if Nintendo cant make a proper console, they should stick to making games on the Playbox. Then you get the unique blend of Cartoon graphics, oriental music and old school gameplay. [/ QUOTE ] Thank god we don't use your opinion. Nintendo make mega bucks by selling systems/games that people want to play. After you've played a few of the best Nintendo games, you'll bin your 360, PS3, XXX etc. [/ QUOTE ] I suppose you are right. The game cube was a fantastic achievement and clearly wiped the floor with the likes of Sony and Microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shao_khan Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think we'll have to accept Woppum that you just don't understand what Nintendo is about. It supplies consols to folks like me who want to maybe escape from reality and have games that keep you hooked for months, not hours. Gameplay is usually paramount. PS2 / Xbox they look more polished, and I have an Xbox - I never use itbecause the games hold my attention for about 10 mins and then I'm bored. Also I dont want to be stuck in what looks like an alternate version of reality, I want to escape it for a few mins. Also I am sure Nintendo will have a HD equiped bit of equipement in the pipeline, but why spend mega bucks now when technology usually does get cheaper as its more readily available. Of course all imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted November 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The whole HD arguement I dont get - will I see the difference on a non - HD telly? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [/ QUOTE ] For once, I don't agree with you Gizze. [/ QUOTE ] He said the whole HD argument he doesn't get, by that I think he means everything, not just games?? Easy to demo to yourself, turn your Sky HD box on, switch to RGB Scart output, the best SD output on the box and then switch between Football or a film on the HD channel and the same on the non HD channel. They are both outputting 720x576i but they don't both look the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woppum Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 HD is important to me now. I find myself watching an not so good film just becasue I want to see in HD and often choose bad HD programs over ok ones too. Animal docs are fantastic in HD especially underwater ones! Ok I can accept there is a market for the games. My question is how big is that market? How much bigger would that market be if this console was offered in HD? As ive said, I can only see Nes being left behind becasue of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snail Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Ok I can accept there is a market for the games. My question is how big is that market? How much bigger would that market be if this console was offered in HD? As ive said, I can only see Nes being left behind becasue of this. [/ QUOTE ] Id say a huge market. Firstly, kids dont tend to have state of the art TVs, especially the younger ones. My first couple of TVs were small hand-me-downs. I didnt have a decent large TV till i was 18ish. Even that was the old lounge TV. I imagine most youngsters are in the same boat, so they certainly wont have access to a HDTV. Bear in mind also, the smaller the TV, the less impact HD has. Put SD, and 1080p next to each other on a 50" screen, it'll blow you away. Put them next to eachother on a 17", and the difference is margainal. This is exactly the reason a lot of the media industry is saying HD-DVD/Bluray wont catch on anywhere near the amount the DVD did. DVD was a huge improvement (quality, speed, etc) over VHS, even on a 13" black and white TV. HD-DVD/Bluray will have small quality increases on normal TVs, and only really be any good on large HD TVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Ok I can accept there is a market for the games. My question is how big is that market? How much bigger would that market be if this console was offered in HD? As ive said, I can only see Nes being left behind becasue of this. [/ QUOTE ] The launch of Wii will make nintendo twice as much as the launch of PS3 will make Sony. (e.g. approx $500M vs $250M) Also Nintendo ship more DS's than MS do XBox 360's, etc, etc. We've been targetting the casual game market solely for several years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorburn Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Absolutely. Look at the top 10 games on PC... 4 of them are The Sims titles, and things like Lego Star Wars are very popular. Nintendogs on the DS has been a MASSIVE seller. The willy waving rights will go to Sony and Microsoft, but you don't seem to get that thats only something a small percentage of people care about Woppum. To put it in terms you might understand, why do people buy 'George' clothes in Asda when they could be wearing Armani? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shao_khan Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 I read some stuff the other day that suggested that the DS is outselling PSP in some markets as well - I love the DS, but I was suprised at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woppum Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 [ QUOTE ] To put it in terms you might understand, why do people buy 'George' clothes in Asda when they could be wearing Armani? [/ QUOTE ] What are you talking about James! The vast majority of people wouldn't know that the X360 was more powerful. Feck I didnt until this thread! I just cant see HD doing anything but getting vastly more popular. I expect it to become the norm in a few years. But then Chav has just given me figures, even if they are just projections it seems Nintendo has a much larger following than I thought. What do I know, im not in the computer business... I just buy them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now