View Full Version : PS3/HDTV Rendering Speed/No Framerate Compromises
And of course supporting HDTV does mean that you can create and review your game’s graphics at a far higher resolution without any interlacing. Although the rendering speed of the PS3 will most likely mean that there are no framerate compromises for HDTV you do lose some more memory to the frame buffer, which is something we have to be mindful of. - wired gamers (http://wired-gamers.com/id12.html)Nick Dixon of Blitz Games on development of 'Possession'. Where he groups the PS3 and X360 together throughout the rest of the interview, here, with regards to HDTV, he seems to single out the PS3.
I don't know if this significant, but I definitely would like to get an explanation as I am very much confused by the statement. Too technical for my simple mind. :sad: I'm thinking he may be singling out the PS3 because of the 1080p resolution, but you guys are the console gurus so I figured you might be able to enlighten me.
-aldo
london-boy
26-Oct-2005, 17:08
What don't you understand? :grin:
We might be able to help if u tell us what you don't understand.
Hardknock
26-Oct-2005, 17:15
W-G: How is the experience of developing for HDTV gaming? Is it difficult? Enjoyable?
ND: Well the fist issue was to get hold of some HDTVs, as they are still quite scarce in the UK currently - you won’t get any complaints from me about having nice shiny top-end TVs on my desk though! ;-)
And of course supporting HDTV does mean that you can create and review your game’s graphics at a far higher resolution without any interlacing. Although the rendering speed of the PS3 will most likely mean that there are no framerate compromises for HDTV you do lose some more memory to the frame buffer, which is something we have to be mindful of.
Here's the full question. Sounds to me he's refering to progressive versus interlaced. Nothing to see here folks.
If I understund what the red part say, I think that is your problem, he say that PS3 is fast enought to render the game at HDTV without any fremerate problem but it will consume memory and they need to work that [to not become a problem].
Anyway if you say the exact question we could help more.
BTW it seems a nice interview, I will read it.
He's saying that RSX is powerful enough to render scenes at 1080p (no interlacing) without a drop in frame-rates, but that there are frame buffer concerns to be mindful of at that resolution.
EDIT: pc999 beat me to it!
Hardknock
26-Oct-2005, 17:21
He's saying that RSX is powerful enough to render scenes at 1080p (no interlacing) without a drop in frame-rates, but that there are frame buffer concerns to be mindful of at that resolution.
EDIT: pc999 beat me to it!
He doesn't specifically state 1080p, he could very well mean 720p :razz:
What don't you understand? :grin:
We might be able to help if u tell us what you don't understand.My bad. I was reading it incorrectly.:oops:
As Hardknock said, "Nothing to see here folks." :oops: :smile: ...or at least it's pretty minor stuff.
-aldo
He doesn't specifically state 1080p, he could very well mean 720p :razz:
It's true, he could. For me I guess I just assumed 1080p as I would have imagined that sort of 'extreme' resolution as being somethign the interviewer would have been asking about; but in truth we don't know which res was in question.
Maybe I'll read the interview as well! :razz:
Shifty Geezer
26-Oct-2005, 17:25
Let's also observe...
Although the rendering speed of the PS3 will most likely mean that there are no framerate compromises for HDTV you do lose some more memory to the frame buffer, which is something we have to be mindful of.In reference to the question 'what does developing for HDTV mean', he basically replies 'we have less memory for other stuff.'
Isn't that just 512MB (PS3) < 512MB + 10MB (Xbox 360)?
Yeah but to be fair the 10MB in Xenos can be used as effectively more than that.
Alpha_Spartan
26-Oct-2005, 17:31
He's saying that RSX is powerful enough to render scenes at 1080p (no interlacing) without a drop in frame-rates, but that there are frame buffer concerns to be mindful of at that resolution.
EDIT: pc999 beat me to it!
Talk about an extrapolation. Where the fuck did you get 1080p from? I couldn't find it.
I'm with Shifty on this one. He says that in terms of graphics processing power they can go balls out in HD, but the frame buffer memory limits it.
So in my opinion I would say that the Xenos and RSX are capable of 1080p, but the limited frame buffer memory on both machines make that unrealistic if you want decent framerates. The PS3 has a graphics chip that supports high-end graphics resolutions, but unlike a PC, the PS3 won't have 512 MB of memory just for graphics.
Seriously Apha, do you read threads through or do you just see posts and you have to respond right then and there? I explain my 1080p assumption (yes I was wrong to assume) in the post following the one you quoted.
And what's with the 'fuck'? There are more civil ways to communicate you know.
EDIT: Further, after reading the interview, I now actually think they were talking about rendering at 720p. Again my mistake to assume earlier.
Alpha_Spartan
26-Oct-2005, 17:40
Seriously Apha, do you read threads through or do you just see posts and you have to respond right then and there? I explain my 1080p assumption (yes I was wrong to assume) in the post following the one you quoted.
And what's with the 'fuck'? There are more civil ways to communicate you know.
EDIT: Further, after reading the interview, I now actually think they were talking about rendering at 720p. Again my mistake to assume earlier.
Edited, mofo. Left the "fuck" in. That's what we call "dramatic effect"? Couldn't you imagine the look of confusion on my face when you read "fuck"? It's not like I was saying, "Fuck you man!" I apologize if I offended you. Just for good measure: fuck.
Edited, mofo. Left the "fuck" in. That's what we call "dramatic effect"? Couldn't you imagine the look of confusion on my face when you read "fuck"? It's not like I was saying, "Fuck you man!" I apologize if I offended you. Just for good measure: fuck.
Yeah, it doesn't offend me - but I feel it breaks up the rhythm of otherwise technical discussions. Anyway...
Well, onwards with the discussion.
DeathKnight
26-Oct-2005, 17:53
:lol:
When I read this earlier, I was genuinely having a hard time grasping the statement. Brainfart due lack of caffeine in the system I guess.
Regardless, if I were to assume anything, I would assume he is singling out the PS3 because of the 1080p. For one, he states, "Well the first issue was to get hold of some HDTVs, as they are still quite scarce in the UK currently. And of course supporting HDTV does mean that you can create and review your game’s graphics at a far higher resolution without any interlacing." He is referring to a higher resolution, non-interlace HDTV that is scarce in the UK. I would think that 720p HDTV's are not that scarce in the UK, but I may be wrong. London-boy might be able to correct me there.
Alpha, I thought the X360 was not capable of generating 1080p, only 1080i. At any rate if the X360 is limited to 1080i, then the mere fact that he refers to the pleasure of reviewing a game at a far higher, non interlace resolution AND the exclusion of the X360 from his comment suggests that he is referring to 1080p.
-aldo
Well that's how I was thinking at first as well Aldo, but since reading the whole quote, I feel it was refering to rendering in the larger context of HD; that is to say you have these two systems, how's the experience of HD? Since it's a multi-platform game, I think the answer was probably based on the 'common' resolution between them of 720p. At least that was my logic for changing my reasoning.
Anyway the full question/answer quote:
W-G: How is the experience of developing for HDTV gaming? Is it difficult? Enjoyable?
ND: Well the fist issue was to get hold of some HDTVs, as they are still quite scarce in the UK currently - you won’t get any complaints from me about having nice shiny top-end TVs on my desk though!
And of course supporting HDTV does mean that you can create and review your game’s graphics at a far higher resolution without any interlacing. Although the rendering speed of the PS3 will most likely mean that there are no framerate compromises for HDTV you do lose some more memory to the frame buffer, which is something we have to be mindful of.
pakotlar
26-Oct-2005, 18:36
X360 is a conglomorate of parts. The Xenos is capable of rendering 1920*1080 full frame, the Xbox360 video out/scaler is restricted to 1080i.
Black Dragon37
26-Oct-2005, 18:37
Aren't we forgetting that the final devkits will come out in December?
Since all developers are so far using the Geforce 7800GTXs in the devkits, maybe it isn't surprising that there's a price for high-def upscaling...
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 18:42
Maybe he's singling out the PS3 because it's going to have Framebuffer issues that the Xenos can effectively deal with using it's EDRAM?
Yes? No?
Maybe he's singling out the PS3 because it's going to have Framebuffer issues that the Xenos can effectively deal with using it's EDRAM?
Yes? No?
Well that's what I think the implication is.
Hardknock
26-Oct-2005, 18:47
When I read this earlier, I was genuinely having a hard time grasping the statement. Brainfart due lack of caffeine in the system I guess.
Regardless, if I were to assume anything, I would assume he is singling out the PS3 because of the 1080p. For one, he states, He is referring to a higher resolution, non-interlace HDTV that is scarce in the UK. I would think that 720p HDTV's are not that scarce in the UK, but I may be wrong. London-boy might be able to correct me there.
Alpha, I thought the X360 was not capable of generating 1080p, only 1080i. At any rate if the X360 is limited to 1080i, then the mere fact that he refers to the pleasure of reviewing a game at a far higher, non interlace resolution AND the exclusion of the X360 from his comment suggests that he is referring to 1080p.
-aldo
The man stated HDTVs were scarce in the UK I very HIGHLY doubt he'd be able to find one that displayed 1080p when the vast majority of HDTVs don't. Especially one small enough to "sit on his desk".
Then he goes on to state:
And of course supporting HDTV does mean that you can create and review your game’s graphics at a far higher resolution without any interlacing.
Basically he's comparing the increased resolution of the HD era 720p to 480i in the past. The reason why he references the PS3 instead of Xbox 360 is because the PS2 had the most 480i games(unlike the Xbox where the majority of games were progressive), so he was just making a relative comparision I'm guessing.
Titanio
26-Oct-2005, 18:48
Maybe he's singling out the PS3 because it's going to have Framebuffer issues that the Xenos can effectively deal with using it's EDRAM?
Yes? No?
The main memory footprint difference between the two will depend on the AA level, precision used etc. but remember that X360's frontbuffer is copied to main memory anyway, so that'll eat into the difference somewhat i.e. regardless of the eDram, a 720p 32-bit framebuffer will occupy ~3.5MB of X360's main memory. The footprint saving on X360's side would relate to the zbuffer and where AA is used (as the samples are not copied out to main memory afaik).
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 18:53
But doesn't the RSX framebuffer always have to go out to it's RAM at relatively slow 22.4 GB/s, while the Xenos framebuffer can go to the Edram and utilize the 256GB/s bandwidth?
That's probably wrong in about a dozen places, but hey I'm here to learn!
Titanio
26-Oct-2005, 19:01
But doesn't the RSX framebuffer always have to go out to it's RAM at relatively slow 22.4 GB/s, while the Xenos framebuffer can go to the Edram and utilize the 256GB/s bandwidth?
That's probably wrong in about a dozen places, but hey I'm here to learn!
The comment by this dev refers to memory space, not bandwidth. "you do lose some more memory to the frame buffer". I doubt it's an issue at all, but it's a qualifier to the setup on PS3 which is why he mentions it presumably. The physical footprint of the framebuffer in memory would be one of the last things I'd be worried about.
Well that's how I was thinking at first as well Aldo, but since reading the whole quote, I feel it was refering to rendering in the larger context of HD; that is to say you have these two systems, how's the experience of HD? Since it's a multi-platform game, I think the answer was probably based on the 'common' resolution between them of 720p. At least that was my logic for changing my reasoning.
Anyway the full question/answer quote:Yeah, you are probably right. Who's to say? I just thought that Mr. Dixon was treating the two consoles as virtual equals thoughout the interview probably trying not to offend potential customers buying on either platform, so it seemed strange he would suddenly attempt to expose a weakness on either the PS3 or X360.
Here he seems to single out the PS3 for the 1080p capability while throwing in the caveat that rendering to the higher res may be difficult. Hence, answering Dixon's question, "Is it difficult? Enjoyable?" Yes to both at the highest resolution. Hence, somewhat acknowledging and yet downplaying the 1080p on the PS3.
The man stated HDTVs were scarce in the UK I very HIGHLY doubt he'd be able to find one that displayed 1080p when the vast majority of HDTVs don't. Especially one small enough to "sit on his desk".
You can find some 27" HDTV's with 1080p here (http://www.thetwistergroup.com/store/customer/product.php?productid=LT-2722%20D27905&source=fr) and here (http://www.mxxo.com/products/pid/6565). 27" appears to be the smallest HDTV sets I can find for 720p or 1080p.
-aldo
Edit: revised duplicate links
Shifty Geezer
26-Oct-2005, 19:09
Edited, mofo. Left the "fuck" in. That's what we call "dramatic effect"? Couldn't you imagine the look of confusion on my face when you read "fuck"? It's not like I was saying, "Fuck you man!" I apologize if I offended you. Just for good measure: fuck.An alternative way of expressing your surprise and confusion that couldn't be mistrued as offensive might be something like...
Talk about an extrapolation. Where on earth did you get 1080p from??? :???: I couldn't find it.Confusion smiley shows you're confused. The wonders of modern technology we can actually transmit emotions across da web! :shock:
:D
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 19:12
You can find some 27" HDTV's with 1080p here (http://www.mxxo.com/products/pid/6565) and here (http://www.mxxo.com/products/pid/6565). 27" appears to be the smallest HDTV sets I can find for 720p or 1080p.
-aldo
That only accepts 1080p signals, it doesn't display 1080p. Big difference.
I've still not seen anyone produce a link to a TV that actually accepts 1080p input and displays it at 1080p resolution. They don't exist on the market to my knowledge.
Finally, most 1080p HDTV sets presently available on the market do not offer a 1080p connection. Though the HDMI standard does support 1080p HDTV, yet the majority of today's 1080p HDTV sets do not offer a 1080p interface on their HDMI port.
To a certain extent, this is explained by the lack of true 1080p HDTV gear with which these sets can interconnect.
In fact, what 1080p sets do is to up-convert 1080i material to 1080p HDTV to combine the benefits of a superior resolution of the 1080i format with the image smoothness and motion sharpness of progressive-scanning.
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/oct05/articles/phtg/1080p.htm
All the 1080p sets right now only accept 1080i signals and they de-interlace them.
Hardknock
26-Oct-2005, 19:14
Yeah, you are probably right. Who's to say? I just thought that Mr. Dixon was treating the two consoles as virtual equals thoughout the interview probably trying not to offend potential customers buying on either platform, so it seemed strange he would suddenly attempt to expose a weakness on either the PS3 or X360.
Here he seems to single out the PS3 for the 1080p capability while throwing in the caveat that rendering to the higher res may be difficult. Hence, answering Dixon's question, "Is it difficult? Enjoyable?" Yes to both at the highest resolution. Hence, somewhat acknowledging and yet downplaying the 1080p on the PS3.
You can find some 27" HDTV's with 1080p here (http://www.mxxo.com/products/pid/6565) and here (http://www.mxxo.com/products/pid/6565). 27" appears to be the smallest HDTV sets I can find for 720p or 1080p.
-aldo
Okay it's obvious you are not very knowledgable about HDTVs, those tvs you linked to have resolutions of:
1280 x 720 pixel resolution
Just because something can accept a signal does not mean it is displaying that on screen my friend :wink: Like I've stated earlier I'm pretty positive he was referencing 720p and HD as a whole.
Okay it's obvious you are not very knowledgable about HDTVs, those tvs you linked to have resolutions of:
Just because something can accept a signal does not mean it is displaying that on screen my friend :wink: Like I've stated earlier I'm pretty positive he was referencing 720p and HD as a whole.Sorry, I hastily pulled up those links under 1080p and didn't read the full product specs. Still, are 720p HDTVs that scarce in the UK?
-aldo
They exist.
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs_full.php/masterid=9154017
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 19:27
The specs seem inconsistent:
HDTV Compatibility
[/font]480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i
PC Compatible
Supported 1280 x 1024 @ 60, 75 Hz 1920 x 1080 @ 60 Hz
<B>(VGA & DVI1) </B>
1280 x 768 @ 60, 75Hz
1024 x 768 @ 60, 75 Hz
800 x 600 @ 60, 75 Hz
640 x 480 @ 60, 75 Hz
720 x 400 @ 70 Hz
(DVI2)
Supported 1280 x 1024 @ 60Hz
1280 x 768 @ 60, 75Hz
1024 x 768 @ 60, 75 Hz
800 x 600 @ 60, 75 Hz
640 x 480 @ 60, 75 Hz
720 x 400 @ 70 Hz
It seems as though it accepts PC output in 1080p, however only support HDTV input of 1080i.
http://www.westinghousedigital.com/support/downloads/uMan/37w1uMan.pdf
It clearly states that it accepts a 1080p input signal if your talking about my link.
Here's another from Sharp. (http://www.sharpusa.com/products/ModelLanding/0,1058,1412,00.html)
I am starting to believe that Dixon is most likely talking about the scarcity of desktop HDTVs with 720p.
-aldo
42" LCD, 1080p, HDMI/ DVI,
http://www.plexhometheater.com/philips42pf9830a42widescreenlcdtv-p-76.html
The main memory footprint difference between the two will depend on the AA level, precision used etc. but remember that X360's frontbuffer is copied to main memory anyway, so that'll eat into the difference somewhat i.e. regardless of the eDram, a 720p 32-bit framebuffer will occupy ~3.5MB of X360's main memory. The footprint saving on X360's side would relate to the zbuffer and where AA is used (as the samples are not copied out to main memory afaik).
It would be a 24-bit framebuffer, prolly, as you wouldn't need alpha, I guess.
Anyway, not forgetting that Xenos has to save predicated geometry in RAM, due to tiling.
The impact of this is still an utter mystery since no-one seems to know in detail how it works.
But I'm sure a bust-up can be had over whether tiling's main memory hit is severe enough to get excited about...
The only counter I can think of is that most rendering algorithms seem to multi-pass geometry, which implies that it needs to be stuffed into memory.
I dunno... :???:
Jawed
42" LCD, 1080p, HDMI/ DVI,
http://www.plexhometheater.com/philips42pf9830a42widescreenlcdtv-p-76.html
Damn longest URL I've ever seen:
http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/catalog/catalog.jsp?fhquery=fh_secondid%3D42pf9830a_37_us_ consumer%26fh_location%3D%2F%2Fconsumer%2Fen_US%2F categories%3Ccatalog_us_consumer%2Fcategories%3Ctv _gr_us_consumer%2Fcategories%3Cflat_tv_ca_us_consu mer%26&productId=42PF9830A_37_US_CONSUMER&activeCategory=FLAT_TV_CA_US_CONSUMER&fredhopperpage=detail.jsp&language=en&country=US&catalogType=CONSUMER&proxybuster=5OXYKHHRJJ40NJ0RMRESHQVHKFSEKI5P
1366x768
Jawed
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 20:35
42" LCD, 1080p, HDMI/ DVI,
http://www.plexhometheater.com/philips42pf9830a42widescreenlcdtv-p-76.html
You guys need to realize that just because something says it's 1080p doesn't mean it's true 1080p, you need to look deeper and go throug the specs, and even then it seems they don't tell the whole story.
From your link:
It has a universal connection for both analogue YPbPr and uncompressed Digital connection of DVI or HDMI, supporting HDCP. It can display 720p, and 1080i signals at 50 and 60Hz.
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 20:38
Damn longest URL I've ever seen:
http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/catalog/catalog.jsp?fhquery=fh_secondid%3D42pf9830a_37_us_ consumer%26fh_location%3D%2F%2Fconsumer%2Fen_US%2F categories%3Ccatalog_us_consumer%2Fcategories%3Ctv _gr_us_consumer%2Fcategories%3Cflat_tv_ca_us_consu mer%26&productId=42PF9830A_37_US_CONSUMER&activeCategory=FLAT_TV_CA_US_CONSUMER&fredhopperpage=detail.jsp&language=en&country=US&catalogType=CONSUMER&proxybuster=5OXYKHHRJJ40NJ0RMRESHQVHKFSEKI5P
1366x768
Jawed
Again:
Supported Display Resolution
• Computer formats
640 x 480 60Hz
800 x 600 60Hz
1024 x 768 60Hz
• Video Formats
640 x 480i 1Fh
640 x 480p 2Fh
720 x 576i 1Fh
720 x 576p 2Fh
1280 x 720p 3Fh
1920 x 1080i 2Fh
http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/4/42pf9830a_37/42pf9830a_37_pss_aen.pdf
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 20:44
It clearly states that it accepts a 1080p input signal if your talking about my link.
The spec sheet clearly states it does NOT accept a 1080p HDTV signal.
HDTV Compatibility
480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i
You guys need to realize that just because something says it's 1080p doesn't mean it's true 1080p, you need to look deeper and go throug the specs, and even then it seems they don't tell the whole story.
From your link:
Yeah I saw that under the "HD ready" sub-title, but they state,
LCD True HD display 1920x1080p
This display has a resolution that is referred to as True HD. With state-of-the-art LCD screen
technology it has the full high-definition widescreen resolution of 1920 x 1080p. This is the highest
resolution that HD broadcast can transmit. It allows the best possible picture quality from any format of
HD input signal. It produces brilliant flicker-free progressive scan pictures with optimum brightness and
superb colours. This vibrant and sharp image will provide you with an enhanced viewing experience.
So they are claiming a true 1080P display still. Best to ring them up!
Or read the two separate documents produced by Philips, linked in this thread, that both indicate 1366x768 :shock:
Jawed
http://hpshopping.speedera.net/www.shopping.hp.com/shopping/images/products/l1737a_150.gif (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?category=flat_panel_tvs&catLevel=3&storeName=storefronts&subcat1=mdtv&product_code=L1737A%23ABA&jumpid=in_r329_personalization/browse1/generic_sub_category_PDP)
"Future-proof" your purchase: this 1080p resolution TV can accept native and compressed 1080p through HDMI at 24/30/60 frames per second
Price $4,999.99
....
Alpha_Spartan
26-Oct-2005, 21:17
An alternative way of expressing your surprise and confusion that couldn't be mistrued as offensive might be something like...
Confusion smiley shows you're confused. The wonders of modern technology we can actually transmit emotions across da web! :shock:
:D
Are you a Brit?
1080p for a PS3 game would likely result in a 30-hz capped framerate compromise if only because the 1080p 60-hz spec isn't well standardized for TVs.
Nite_Hawk
26-Oct-2005, 21:24
The model number is wrong. The 1080p one is this one:
http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/catalog/catalog.jsp?fhquery=fh_secondid%3D42pf9830_10_gb_c onsumer%26fh_location%3D%2F%2Fconsumer%2Fen_GB%2Fc ategories%3Ccatalog_gb_consumer%2Fcategories%3Ctv_ gr_gb_consumer%2Ffh_att_tvscreensize%253DFH_TV_TVS IZE_LARGE%2Fcategories%3Cflat_tv_ca_gb_consumer%2F categories%3Clcd_extra_large_gt40_su_gb_consumer%2 6&productId=42PF9830_10_GB_CONSUMER&activeCategory=TV_GR_GB_CONSUMER&fredhopperpage=detail.jsp&activeTab=specifications&language=en&country=GB&catalogType=CONSUMER&proxybuster=ODHMIOBHBPCM5J0RMRCSHP3HKFSESI5P
Nite_Hawk
Heinrich4
26-Oct-2005, 21:37
The future is OLED...
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/6946/oledsamsung046da.jpg
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/4329/oledsamsung010gk.jpg
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/693/oledsamsung021xc.jpg
Shifty Geezer
26-Oct-2005, 21:37
Are you a Brit?I'm taking the fifth...
Inane_Dork
26-Oct-2005, 21:39
Fuck, are you a Brit?Fixed. ;)
Hardknock
26-Oct-2005, 21:44
The future is OLED...
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/6946/oledsamsung046da.jpg
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/4329/oledsamsung010gk.jpg
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/693/oledsamsung021xc.jpg
that looks absolutely fantastic! Are there any estimated price points for these babies yet?
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 21:45
Fixed. ;)
:lol::lol::lol:
Fixed. ;)
LOL, post of the week!
that looks absolutely fantastic! Are there any estimated price points for these babies yet?
Those OLEDs are just prototypes - actual OLED sets are a couple of years off as they try to coat the film in such a way that it does not degrade. OLED is certainly the future though; you'll see them increasingly used in cell phone and camera displays. I'm sure game boys and next-gen PSPs will be using them soon enough as well. The degredation problem is more manageable with smaller screens.
The future is SED. OLED displays will be for cellphones and portable devices. At least that's what my crystal ball says .... ;)
SED is nice, but OLED offers just some incredible advantages. SED will be for the people who want thin and CRT-quality. OLED is higher quality than LCD though (supposedly) and offers much lower power draw and interestign form-factor options.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love SED to take off. I mean Canon in the TV space? Craziness.
Nite_Hawk
26-Oct-2005, 22:05
Don't count out LED backed LCD displays.
Nite_Hawk
The future is OLED...
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/6946/oledsamsung046da.jpg
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/4329/oledsamsung010gk.jpg
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/693/oledsamsung021xc.jpg
I would prefer those babes instead...:shock: :wink:
ninelven
26-Oct-2005, 22:17
Ok, here are the only two that both accept and display at 1080p (through a dvi/hdmi connection) currently in existence (to my knowledge).
MD5880 (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?storeName=storefronts&landing=&category=flat_panel_tvs&subcat1=mdtv&catLevel=3&product_code=L1798A%23ABA)
MD6580 (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?storeName=storefronts&landing=&category=flat_panel_tvs&subcat1=mdtv&catLevel=3&product_code=L1737A%23ABA)
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 22:21
Ok, here are the only two that both accept and display at 1080p (through a dvi/hdmi connection) currently in existence (to my knowledge).
MD5880 (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?storeName=storefronts&landing=&category=flat_panel_tvs&subcat1=mdtv&catLevel=3&product_code=L1798A%23ABA)
MD6580 (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?storeName=storefronts&landing=&category=flat_panel_tvs&subcat1=mdtv&catLevel=3&product_code=L1737A%23ABA)
Nice find! That's the first true 1080p sets i've ever seen, released in Sept 2005. So, they're coming along finally!!
Still, 99% of these "1080p" tv sets do not accept native 1080p, and simply being marketed that way. They take 1080i, de-interlace it, and display 1080p.
ShootMyMonkey
26-Oct-2005, 22:44
The future is OLED...
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/6...msung046da.jpg
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/4...msung010gk.jpg
http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/6...msung021xc.jpg
Problems still loom as far as getting good (to say nothing of even across all colors) lifespans of the OLED elements themselves.
But like Deepak said, my eyes drift more to the babes than the panels. If they come with, I'll take 5 or 6...
Or read the two separate documents produced by Philips, linked in this thread, that both indicate 1366x768 :shock:
Jawed
Those are the wrong documents as already stated by Nite_Hawk.
The text from my original link refer to this pdf from philips,
http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/4/42pf9830_10/42pf9830_10_pss_eng.pdf
They sure as heck suggest 'TRUE' 1080P display and input. If I was spending 3k+, I'd sure ring them to make sure of any inconsistencies!
london-boy
26-Oct-2005, 23:13
Those are the wrong documents as already stated by Nite_Hawk.
The text from my original link refer to this pdf from philips,
http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/4/42pf9830_10/42pf9830_10_pss_eng.pdf
They sure as heck suggest 'TRUE' 1080P display and input. If I was spending 3k+, I'd sure ring them to make sure of any inconsistencies!
The confusion arises by the fact that the 32" version of the 9830 is just 720p, while the 37" one is 1080p.
And even stranger is that even the 37" one isn't a "true" 1080p set. It will only accept a 1080i signal and internally convert it to 1080p. It will not show a 1080p signal for what it is. Confusing and i'm not sure exactly how this works, but it's the truth we have come to see in the AVFORUMS.
scooby_dooby
26-Oct-2005, 23:17
I think the reason it's like this is there are no actual devices that output 1080p right now.
Since there's no 1080p output devices, the TV manufacturers are not supporting it.
But at the same time, in an attempt to sell consumers newer and greater TV's, they have begun producing TV sets with 1080p native display format. So, what we end up with are 1080p TV, that only accept 1080i signals. They're being marketed as 1080p TV sets, when they really don't even take a 1080p signal.
london-boy
26-Oct-2005, 23:22
I think the reason it's like this is there are no actual devices that output 1080p right now.
Since there's no 1080p output devices, the TV manufacturers are not supporting it.
But at the same time, in an attempt to sell consumers newer and greater TV's, they have begun producing TV sets with 1080p native display format. So, what we end up with are 1080p TV, that only accept 1080i signals. They're being marketed as 1080p TV sets, when they really don't even take a 1080p signal.
I guess that's kinda right. The strane thing is that the set is fully 1920x1080 but plugging it to a PC, it just will not take a 1920x1080p signal. It will however take a 1080i signal (not sure how they got a PC to output that res but well that's not my problem), then reconvert it to 1080p (it's LCD so it only displays progressive images)... Go figure... Not sure what the end result is, but this is still one damn fine set, probably the best out now in Europe.
Who knows on the two info pages it states:
Display Specifications:
Viewable Screen Size 37.0" Diagonal
16:9 Aspect ratio
Native/Optimum Resolution 1920 x 1080
16.7 Million colors
Compatible Modes
NTSC 480i
HD Ready 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
Yet in the manual it is as scooby states.
The man stated HDTVs were scarce in the UK I very HIGHLY doubt he'd be able to find one that displayed 1080p when the vast majority of HDTVs don't. Especially one small enough to "sit on his desk".
Then he goes on to state:
Basically he's comparing the increased resolution of the HD era 720p to 480i in the past. The reason why he references the PS3 instead of Xbox 360 is because the PS2 had the most 480i games(unlike the Xbox where the majority of games were progressive), so he was just making a relative comparision I'm guessing.
I'd have to agree that makes the most sence, I mean is it really worth it to play in 1080p when you could have better textures, lighting and framerate at 720p? Just my opinion, harray if it does my next TV will support 1080p I just think 512mb of Ram does limit things bit.
Resolution is all that matters and most of the satelite HDTV stuff that I have seen suggest that 1080i >>>>720p when it comes to picture quality. So as long the 1080i video is 1920x1080 in resolution there should be nothing wrong, but in 1080 resolution and running in progressive scan it would be even sweeter.
Shifty Geezer
26-Oct-2005, 23:44
I'd have to agree that makes the most sence, I mean is it really worth it to play in 1080p when you could have better textures, lighting and framerate at 720p? Just my opinion, harray if it does my next TV will support 1080p I just think 512mb of Ram does limit things bit.Though given 720p with AA or 1080p without, requirements would be the same.
Though given 720p with AA or 1080p without, requirements would be the same.
Yea I suppose but isn't that a major over generalization, there's alot of factors involved. I'm asking I don't know
Sorry if I´m slightly offtopic, but I need to know: will next gen DVD players work on HDTV´s that only have a DVI input?? Will it be able to display 720p and 1080i signals through this port? PS3 only has a HDMI output, so I´m wondering if I could still get a HD signal, given the limitations of my HDTV set.
Alpha_Spartan
27-Oct-2005, 05:19
LOL, post of the week!
Pipe down on the ass-kissing, you're not on TXB...
Hardknock
27-Oct-2005, 05:19
Sorry if I´m slightly offtopic, but I need to know: will next gen DVD players work on HDTV´s that only have a DVI input?? Will it be able to display 720p and 1080i signals through this port? PS3 only has a HDMI output, so I´m wondering if I could still get a HD signal, given the limitations of my HDTV set.
Yes you can use DVI for PS3 games and they will display HD, but as for Blu-Ray movies your DVI will have to be HDCP compliant or they'll only display at SD res. Check your TVs manual to see if your DVI is HDCP compliant.
Yes you can use DVI for PS3 games and they will display HD, but as for Blu-Ray movies your DVI will have to be HDCP compliant or they'll only display at SD res. Check your TVs manual to see if your DVI is HDCP compliant.
Oh, I see, thanks, that question had been on my mind for a long time.
LunchBox
27-Oct-2005, 06:02
the samsung brand HD TVs offer diplaying 1080P at reasonable prices...
just wanted to throw that out there...
!eVo!-X Ant UK
27-Oct-2005, 08:42
To me it seems that :
1. PS3 can render at all high def resolution with-out a frame rate hit....BUT...a hit on memory
2. 360 can render at all high def resolutions but takes a frame rate hit....but...does'nt have as big a memory hit as PS3.
i want to know how PS3 is able to render at higher resolutions WITH-OUT a frame rate hit.
NOTE: any mistakes or me talking rubbish please feel free to correct me
joebloggs
27-Oct-2005, 09:27
Edited, mofo. Left the "fuck" in. That's what we call "dramatic effect"? Couldn't you imagine the look of confusion on my face when you read "fuck"? It's not like I was saying, "Fuck you man!" I apologize if I offended you. Just for good measure: fuck.
What a dick.
Shifty Geezer
27-Oct-2005, 09:52
Yea I suppose but isn't that a major over generalization, there's alot of factors involved. I'm asking I don't knowHmmm, maybe actualy 1080p would take a noticeable hit because you're running more shader ops for more pixels. AA needs to shade half the pixels and MSAA blends, so you're saving half your pixel shading requirements from 1080p which can go towards more complex shaders.
To me it seems that :
2. 360 can render at all high def resolutions but takes a frame rate hit....but...does'nt have as big a memory hit as PS3.
Here did you saw that?
Heinrich4
27-Oct-2005, 13:57
I would prefer those babes instead...:shock: :wink:
I would prefer babe of the last photo heheh, but without the hint...
But this Tvs seems that still they reach (given of a friend) 20000
hours and is cheaper than the current technologies.
i think people are reading WAY too much into this comment. It sounded a lot like speculation on the develoeprs part.
flick556
27-Oct-2005, 14:17
To me it seems that :
1. PS3 can render at all high def resolution with-out a frame rate hit....BUT...a hit on memory
2. 360 can render at all high def resolutions but takes a frame rate hit....but...does'nt have as big a memory hit as PS3.
i want to know how PS3 is able to render at higher resolutions WITH-OUT a frame rate hit.
NOTE: any mistakes or me talking rubbish please feel free to correct me
I guess if you think of a "hit" as something in relation to current hardware. Then xbox360 has an additional overhead hit for tiling but perhaps peak memory storage and bandwidth consumption is lower because you only need info about the current tile at any one time. Given the size of these tiles I really don't think things will change very much.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.