1080p/60 HDMI Clarification

[scooby_dooby]

His point was that their system, Xbox 360, was not going to be able to do 1080p30/60 via HDMI and that PS3 doing 1080p30/60 via HDMI was not a reality.

That's your interpretation. I think he was trying to point out the huge gap between Sony's hype for 1080p and the REALITY of actual 1080p sets.

Did he mean that no 1080p sets would ever be avaliable? I doubt it. He was pointing out that install base on 1080p sets is effectively 0%, that means that even over the next 4 or 5 years, the % of people who actually own 1080p TV's will still be very small. Making the whole touting of 1080p as the superior format kinda stupid.

720p/1080i is hi-def, it's the same hi-def sony has been selling in stores for a decade now, and it is the resolution that 99% of current HDTV owners own.

The 1080p thing is sillyness, not only will the PS3 not be able to render at those resolutions on the vast majority of games(so it's a phantom argument anyways), but an install base for 1080p is non-existant, meaning developers won't even bother targeting it at all.

 

[expletive]

Here is a link to the ATSC standards, its a pdf, just use the search feature for 1080, on page 33 there is a chart.

For the ATSC standard for MPEG-2 29.97 and 30 are the standards for 1080i, for 1080p they are: 23.976, 24, 29.97, and 30.

There is also a footer with this info:

2 Note that 1088 lines are actually coded in order to satisfy the MPEG-2 requirement that the coded vertical size
be a multiple of 16 (progressive scan) or 32 (interlaced scan). The bottom 8 lines are black, per MPEG rules.

According to the podcast on Major Nelson this week, it seems that 1080p is not part of the SMPTE HD broadcast standard. I think thats what I originally had mind. Still a good link though!

 

[pipo]

The 1080p thing is sillyness, not only will the PS3 not be able to render at those resolutions on the vast majority of games(so it's a phantom argument anyways), but an install base for 1080p is non-existant, meaning developers won't even bother targeting it at all.

This is true for games, but 1080p24-ish for movies would rock.

 

[c0_re]

By the time a 1080p/60 environment reaches even a million households, we'll be well in to the next next-generation of consoles. I saw a recent study that said 50% of HDTV owners don't even have an HD source (over air, cable, or satellite) connected to it. That's just sad!

So so true, I know a bunch of people who up until recently the cable company offered HDTV DVR didn't even have ANY HD source, most of them thought DVD was HD.

 

[MfA]

The 1080p thing is sillyness

Not nearly as silly as 1080i.

 

[London Geezer]

So so true, I know a bunch of people who up until recently the cable company offered HDTV DVR didn't even have ANY HD source, most of them thought DVD was HD.

That's because, when DVD exploded, it was advertised as "high definition" or "higher resolution than VHS" or whatever they were saying. At the time, it was "high definition" compared to the old standard. The problem is that some people only embraced DVD not too long ago, and maybe not long ago enough to think that DVD needs to be replaced. Even then, if they have an SDTV and don't expect to buy a HDTV, they won't need anything more than DVD. Eventually they'll switch. Eventually.

 

[NANOTEC]

Not nearly as silly as 1080i.

There are already millions of 1080i capable HDTV sets out there. How is that more silly? DVD players started out as 480i then quickly moved to 480p. There is nothing silly about it. By the time 1080p HDTV sets are available in large numbers, HD DVD players will be selling for $150. By that time Blu-ray players will also be a lot cheaper. So all that time that you've had your $1000 Blu-ray player, you couldn't even take advantage of the 1080p. All that time you could only watch your BR player depreciate in value while not being able to use that uber 1080p output.

 

[London Geezer]

There are already millions of 1080i capable HDTV sets out there. How is that more silly? DVD players started out as 480i then quickly moved to 480p. There is nothing silly about it.

Then.... 1080p is only as silly as 480p? 480p is silly? *confused*

1080p is a future thing, it's as "needed" as 480p was.

Personally, on my HDTV, i can hardly see the interlacing effects of 480i, and on the same set, 1080i will be downscaled to 1366x768 anyway.

If there's something silly, it's the total non-uniformity of all these TVs, all with different resolutions which sometimes don't even match the 720p/1080i standards anyway.

There's nothing silly about 1080p. There is, however, something silly with the constant put-downs from certain people of anything Sony tries to push, just because they're Sony. To them, all Sony does is "silly". No point in arguing there.

 

[NANOTEC]

Then.... 1080p is only as silly as 480p? 480p is silly? *confused*

Spending more money for 1080p NOW is silly, because you won't be able to use it NOW. By the time you're able to take advantage of it your player would've depreciated in value equal to new players on the market that also support 1080p. In other words you should've just waited for the cheaper 1080p players instead of throwing your money down the sh*tter.

 

[London Geezer]

Spending more money for 1080p NOW is silly, because you won't be able to use it NOW. By the time you're able to take advantage of it your player would've depreciated in value equal to new players on the market that also support 1080p. In other words you should've just waited for the cheaper 1080p players instead of throwing your money down the sh*tter.

Must be me, but you're not making much sense.

Buying a Bluray player NOW is, by your argumentation, silly, because, whether it's 1080p or 1080i, it's a very expensive piece of kit, and waiting a few months would be better as cheaper players will obviously come out. I can agree with that, but that has little to do with the fact that it's 1080p or 1080i. If anything, if you're going to spend all that money on an early very expensive player, you might as well future proof it and make it that it outputs 1080p. All Bluray players will output 1080p anyway.
I'm just not understanding how 1080p itself is "silly".

If anything, your argument would work much better if instead of arguing against 1080p, you argued against the fact that buying a $1000 Bluray player NOW is silly, as not many people would appreciate 1080p now, and people should wait for cheaper Bluray players instead of throwing their money down the sh*tter.

It's not like 1080p is what makes Bluray players expensive!!

 

[ERP]

Wrong topic

 

[NANOTEC]

Must be me, but you're not making much sense.

Buying a Bluray player NOW is, by your argumentation, silly, because, whether it's 1080p or 1080i, it's a very expensive piece of kit, and waiting a few months would be better as cheaper players will obviously come out. I can agree with that, but that has little to do with the fact that it's 1080p or 1080i. If anything, if you're going to spend all that money on an early very expensive player, you might as well future proof it and make it that it outputs 1080p. All Bluray players will output 1080p anyway.
I'm just not understanding how 1080p itself is "silly".

If anything, your argument would work much better if instead of arguing against 1080p, you argued against the fact that buying a $1000 Bluray player NOW is silly, as not many people would appreciate 1080p now, and people should wait for cheaper Bluray players instead of throwing their money down the sh*tter.

It's not like 1080p is what makes Bluray players expensive!!

Buying a BR player now because it supports 1080p now is silly because you won't be able to use its 1080p feature now. Why pay more now for 1080p? It makes more sense to pay less now for 1080i because you can use it now. By the time 1080p HDTVs become abundant, the players will be even cheaper which by then you will be able to use the 1080p features of your player which you paid less for.

 

[London Geezer]

Buying a BR player now because it supports 1080p is silly because you won't be able to use its 1080p feature now. Why pay more now for 1080p? It makes more sense to pay less now for 1080i because you can use it now. By the time 1080p HDTVs become abundant, the players will be even cheaper which by then you will be able to use the 1080p features of your player which you paid less for.

Again you're not making much sense. Early adopters will pay whatever amount, because they have cash to burn. 1080p is such a non issue here it's not even funny. Most if not all Bluray titles will be at 1080p, so i could argue, why waste money on a player that can't show you all the resolution in the movies you'll be buying in the future?
Bluray is 1080p. That's it.

Not a lot of people will be buying Bluray "because of 1080p". They'll be buying it cause it's new, it's shiny, it's hi-def, it's got the most titles, and lots of other reasons.

People who will buy Bluray players early "because of 1080p" are obviously people who will soon enough also buy 1080p sets, so it's not silly for them, if they have cash to burn. It's quite a logical conclusion, don't you think? Otherwise, they wouldn't buy it because of 1080p, if they know they won't be buying a 1080p set. They'd buy it for other reasons, some of which i explained above.

"By the time 1080p TVs become abundant, players will be cheaper". That's stating the obvious, the issue here is that early adopters are early adopters. People with lots of cash who like to buy "the new thing" straight away. They're fully aware that in a few months, much cheaper units will come out. The same can be said for EVERY single piece of electronic equipment ever sold, and in the future.

You're basically saying it's silly to buy Bluray players now just because of 1080p. That's just a very limited view. It might be silly for most people because:
1) it's unproven tech
2) they're impossibly expensive
3) there's a limited library of movies
4) it's not "needed"
And lots of other reasons...

1080p is way down the list of silliness. And personally, it's not silly to me.

 

[NANOTEC]

If you go back a few posts, you'll see that I was responding to Mfa's post where he says 1080i is more silly than 1080p which is not the case at all. In fact 1080i makes more sense for people who want to enjoy HD now not sometime later when they get to buying a 1080p HDTV. If you have to wait for 1080p HDTV anyway, why not also get the BR player later when you have something to hook it up to that can actually benefit from 1080p? That way the BR player would also be cheaper. Just doesn't make sense. If you read what was posted, it mentions that converting 1080p to 1080i for use on availble HDTVs is going to be a big challlenge so most likely BR will not work wth existing HDTVs unless it supports 1080i. Also you're wrong about early adopters. Not all early adopters will pay any price for the newest gadget. I'm an early adopter and I don't plan on getting a BR player because it supports 1080p from the start. I will be getting a HD DVD player because it's cheaper and supports 1080i which I'll be able to use with my current HDTV. When I upgradoe my HDTV to a 1080p set, I'll also upgrade my HD DVD player to a 1080p model.

 

[London Geezer]

If you go back a few posts, you'll see that I was responding to Mfa's post where he says 1080i is more silly than 1080p which is not the case at all. In fact 1080i makes more sense for people who want to enjoy HD now not sometime later when they get to buying a 1080p HDTV. If you have to wait for 1080p HDTV anyway, why not also get the BR player later when you have something to hook it up to that can actually benefit from 1080p? That way the BR player would also be cheaper. Just doesn't make sense.

When is Bluray coming out?
When are the first 1080p TVs coming out?
One doesn't need a 1080p panel to watch Bluray movies. A 720p or 1080i TV will do for the time being.
Of course Bluray will work on all HDTVs with HDCP (either through HDMI or DVI), and not only the 1080i ones. It will even work on SDTVs, although i don't see the point in buying Bluray if you don't have a HDTV.
Once again, people won't be buying Bluray "because of 1080p". Not most of them anyway.

If you read what was posted, it mentions that converting 1080p to 1080i for use on availble HDTVs is going to be a big challlenge so most likely BR will not work wth existing HDTVs unless it supports 1080i.

Where was that?! Of course it will work.

 

[NANOTEC]

From post #33 of this very same thread.

Regarding when we're going to see 1080p, HD DVD's representative have indicated to me that at least the format's initial releases will be 1080i, not 1080p. Blu-ray titles however, have been specified in press releases as 1080p. We'll see. Given how few displays can accept 1080p native, and the specter of down-rez'd analog outputs haunts both formats, it's uncertain how the many people without 1080p native-compatible displays will get such a signal off of the discs that carry it. The processing involved in converting 1080p to 1080i seems extensive, and I've received no word as to whether players from either format will support such a provision- a provision that seems critically necessary for a good number of early adopters.

 

[London Geezer]

From post #33 of this very same thread.
Regarding when we're going to see 1080p, HD DVD's representative have indicated to me that at least the format's initial releases will be 1080i, not 1080p. Blu-ray titles however, have been specified in press releases as 1080p. We'll see. Given how few displays can accept 1080p native, and the specter of down-rez'd analog outputs haunts both formats, it's uncertain how the many people without 1080p native-compatible displays will get such a signal off of the discs that carry it. The processing involved in converting 1080p to 1080i seems extensive, and I've received no word as to whether players from either format will support such a provision- a provision that seems critically necessary for a good number of early adopters.

And today's keyword is:

HD DVD's representative


Please, when someone other than the bloody competition comes out with such stupid stuff, maybe i'll believe it. Thinking that converting a progressive scan signal to interlaced is "extensive" and then extrapolating that something will not work from that makes me laugh. You should know better.

 

[NANOTEC]

And today's keyword is:

HD DVD's representative

Please, when someone other than the bloody competition comes out with such stupid stuff, maybe i'll believe it. Thinking that converting a progressive scan signal to interlaced is "extensive" and then extrapolating that something will not work from that makes me laugh. You should know better.

We will see.

 

[Mr. Hanky]

I wonder if it is silly to buy an X360 today since true next-gen titles that really leverage the hardware won't be available for another 6-12 mos or more. Alternately, the "smart" X360 users must have bought their X360 soley to enjoy the splendor of the first release titles? When the 1st & 2nd gen titles come, they would be just as happy to buy Xbox v.1.752 all over again to play them? This is certainly a wacky predicament.

 

[expletive]

I wonder if it is silly to buy an X360 today since true next-gen titles that really leverage the hardware won't be available for another 6-12 mos or more. Alternately, the "smart" X360 users must have bought their X360 soley to enjoy the splendor of the first release titles? When the 1st & 2nd gen titles come, they would be just as happy to buy Xbox v.1.752 all over again to play them? This is certainly a wacky predicament.

From what i can tell, the argument is that people wont be able to view BR in movies in HD if they cant accept a native 1080p signal.

Now if the 360 shared this lmitiation where if you werent one of the .0001% who own a 1080p TV, you would be limited to SD then id be inclined to agree.