HDMI output for X360

[Bohdy]

Optical scaling is certainly a reality, so it's not exclusively a digital (mathematical) operation.

However, I'm not claiming that the 360 chip does something of the sort, just that I've heard it is analog in nature. I don't know if that is accurate or not, or even specifically what it may refer to.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Hi Shifty , you are wrong on this, to enlarge a 35mm negative the negative gets digital scanned to be converted into an hi resolution digital image, and then printed, so the scaling itself always appens in the digital domain.
Bye,
Ventresca.

I hope your being sarcastic

 

[DeeW]

Hi Shifty , you are wrong on this, to enlarge a 35mm negative the negative gets digital scanned to be converted into an hi resolution digital image, and then printed, so the scaling itself always appens in the digital domain.

Hope this help,

Bye,
Ventresca.

What Bohdy said, all you need to to in order to scale a 35mm negative is use it as a lithographic mask... much like silicon processes used today. Very much an 'analog' process...

 

[expletive]

I dunno if one exists, and wasn't replying as such. Just that scaling does not exist solely in the domain of maths.
The point 'Scaling is math, it has to be done with numbers, i.e. on a digital signal.' is not true. Even if an analogue scaling chip doesn't exist, that's not because it's impossible to do scaling with analogue sources. The fact an analogue CRT can scale to different resolutions proves that point.

My reply was in the specific context of Bohdy's point:

I remember reading that the scaler in the 360 was fully analog. I assume that scaling is also possible in the analog domain.

So i dont know why we're bringing in every possible use of the word 'scaling'...

As for the CRT, just because it can display multiple resolutions and refresh rates it doesnt mean its 'scaling' in the analog domain. There are CRTs, however, that may require or operate better at a certain resolution. In those cases the input signal is converted to digital, scaled, then converted back to analog for display.

This is part of the reason why people prefer a digital video connection. It keeps the video signal in the digital domain longer and usually with less A/D and D/A conversions. These conversions can introduce artifacts or compromise the image in some way, but not always in meaningful or perceptible ways.

 

[Ventresca]

Even if an analogue scaling chip doesn't exist, that's not because it's impossible to do scaling with analogue sources. The fact an analogue CRT can scale to different resolutions proves that point.

No Shifty, it don't prove your point as displaying and scaling are two different things.

Any analog CRT that process a video signal , for example to convert it from a non native resolution to the native screen resolution , is equipped with a DAC.

Bye,
Ventresca.

 

[Ventresca]

What Bohdy said, all you need to to in order to scale a 35mm negative is use it as a lithographic mask... much like silicon processes used today. Very much an 'analog' process...

This can't be done with a video signal, which is the point of the discussion.

Bye,
Ventresca.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My reply was in the specific context of Bohdy's point:
So i dont know why we're bringing in every possible use of the word 'scaling'...

Your response wasn't clear, at least to me. "Scaling is math" is different to 'image scaling' or 'scaling on a chip', but I see how you are using the same abbreviate qualification as Bohdy's original point so it makes sense. Just so long as people don't start thinking it's impossible to scale things without digitizing them I'm happy to let the conversation return to normal

 

[Bohdy]

Found a reference for the analog scaling thing: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=504386&postcount=9

Can anyone verify? Any more information on the WebTV group's scalers out there?

 

[Ventresca]

I hope your being sarcastic

Sorry dude is not easy at all to follow the sense of what you are trying to say.

Are you talking about just making a larger paper print from your 35mm negative ?

This can hardly be considered a scaling if you print from the same (Hi resolution) 35mm source with two different sizes, it's not like you are using a smaller paper print to make a bigger paper print.

Are you talking about enlarging your 35mm negative ?

If so, if you know another way to enlarge a film negative (for example going from a 16mm negative to a 35mm negative) , with the same cost and quality result, without a scanner and then a film recorder, please tell me.

Finally, how this silly talking relate to the video signal processed by the xbox360 scaler ?

Bye,
Ventresca.

 

[expletive]

Your response wasn't clear, at least to me. "Scaling is math" is different to 'image scaling' or 'scaling on a chip', but I see how you are using the same abbreviate qualification as Bohdy's original point so it makes sense. Just so long as people don't start thinking it's impossible to scale things without digitizing them I'm happy to let the conversation return to normal

Sounds good to me, apologies for the confusion.

 

[Siraris]

I can't imagine that Microsoft would bring out a seperate SKU for an HDMI connection. If they can somehow scale the analog signal and have some sort of multi-out, then that would be fine, but I find that unlikely. If that was the case, why wouldn't Sony be doing that with the PS3 instead of having a seperate HDMI port.

I just feel like Microsoft is tacking on features with accessories, and add-on accessories have never worked in the history of video games. They say that Blu-Ray is unecessary, yet they are releasing HD-DVD. They have add-on Wifi, and now the idea of a seperate HDMI SKU, it's a bit ridiculous. I'd honestly rather buy a PS3 and get everything in one box, instead of wondering what's coming down the pipe in the next few years.

 

[kyleb]

Finally, how this silly talking relate to the video signal processed by the xbox360 scaler ?

It's silly talking about that now as Shifty adressed your point before you ever posted in this thread:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=814238&postcount=19

I can't imagine that Microsoft would bring out a seperate SKU for an HDMI connection.

Me neither, HDMI 360s will likely just replace the current models at some point.

 

[expletive]

I can't imagine that Microsoft would bring out a seperate SKU for an HDMI connection. If they can somehow scale the analog signal and have some sort of multi-out, then that would be fine, but I find that unlikely.

I dont think it would be a new SKU for JUST an HDMI connection (at least not early on). I think a lot of the more recent HDMI talk has been linked to a high-end A/V sku which would add HD-DVD, HDMI, and a larger hard drive (maybe wifi also).

There is no cost effective way to make a cable that would convert the analog signal to digital and also have HDMI. The 360 scaling solution would need to output a digital signal in order for a cable solution to be possible.

If that was the case, why wouldn't Sony be doing that with the PS3 instead of having a seperate HDMI port.

THeres not only technical answers to every question, there's marketing ones as well. They could very well be using HDMI to drive consumers to the $600 model.

I just feel like Microsoft is tacking on features with accessories, and add-on accessories have never worked in the history of video games. They say that Blu-Ray is unecessary, yet they are releasing HD-DVD. They have add-on Wifi, and now the idea of a seperate HDMI SKU, it's a bit ridiculous. I'd honestly rather buy a PS3 and get everything in one box, instead of wondering what's coming down the pipe in the next few years.

Add-on accessories that are intrinsic to playing the games have been losers in the past, but these accessories are not required to play any game in the 360's library (with a few exceptions requiring the HD). The idea is to reduce the cost of entry as much as possible and then give the users the choice to upgrade later on. A lot users had no intention to buy every accessory, so they end up spending less overall.

Me neither, HDMI 360s will likely just replace the current models at some point.

I dunno if i agree there. Adding HDMI at this point in the cycle requires some backpedaling on their part, while adding a premium "premium" SKU doesnt. (I think at some point they may all have HDMI that may only come when they all have HD-DVD drives.)

 

[kyleb]

Backpedelaing from what?

 

[kyleb]

Backpedelaing from what? And they already have "premium" SKU but I doubt they will ever "all have HD-DVD drives."

 

[expletive]

Backpedelaing from what? And they already have "premium" SKU but I doubt they will ever "all have HD-DVD drives."

Backpedaling from their current position that you dont need HDMI to play games or watch HD movies.

If they release it now, the obvious question would be:

"If it was so important that you would revise all your products for it, why didnt you include it at launch, certainly the technology was there to do so?"
Plus don't you think it would upset a lot of early adopters (and mid-term adopters) doing it so soon?

Yeah i dont think theyll all have HD-DVD drives either but thats the only time i can see them considering to include HDMI in every console, if at all (see:Sony $499 model).

Edit: And by premium, premium, i mean the rumored A/V SKU.

 

[kyleb]

Backpedaling from their current position that you dont need HDMI to play games or watch HD movies.

They would have to disable output of HD over other connections to backpedal from that.

If they release it now, the obvious question would be:

"If it was so important that you would revise all your products for it, why didnt you include it at launch, certainly the technology was there to do so?"

Seems like a silly question, there are a huge number of factors that play in on such decsisons.

Plus don't you think it would upset a lot of early adopters (and mid-term adopters) doing it so soon?

I know some will but I doubt a lot by any means, as a 360 owner myself I have to say that seems like a downright absurd thing to get upset about.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Backpedaling from their current position that you dont need HDMI to play games or watch HD movies.

You don't need it, doesn't mean that people won't use it now or in the future if its there.

"If it was so important that you would revise all your products for it, why didnt you include it at launch, certainly the technology was there to do so?"

Probably because it would have caused delays and there have been a number of revisions out there.

 

[Guden Oden]

Seems like a silly question, there are a huge number of factors that play in on such decsisons.

Not at all!

Assuming MS is indeed going to include HDMI (something I don't really hold for certain at this point), to point out that from going to say that it isn't neccessary to doing a complete 180, is certainly not a silly question.

I don't really see what 'huge' number of factors you're referring to may be. MS knew just as well as Sony that HDMI is the future, not including it from the get-go is certainly nothing short of shortsightedness, and their offered excuse that they'd include it when it makes sense, is just plain lame. HDMI makes perfect sense ALREADY, and definitely even more so in the very near future.

That doesn't concern me personally though. I don't care one way or the other; my TV only has one digital input, and my (preordered) PS3 has always been destined to occupy it, just as my 360 occupies the component in, and Wii will occupy the S-video in. Since HD movies are destined - by gentlemen's agreement between movie studios - to not require DRM across the video connection until 2012, surely my 360 will have been retired and replaced by a 960 or whatever by then, which HAS to feature a 'secure' video transmission link as standard...

Frankly, this is a bit of a non-issue, the 360's component video out looks great, but fact is, HDMI from day one would have been logical, and smart. It isn't expected of MS to act stupid like this... Most people only have one component-in on their TVs, but may have more pieces of equipment to plug into it; satellite tuners, DVRs, cable boxes or whatever. Offering HDMI in addition would give people more freedom when hooking their stuff together. I can imagine things a lot more fun than crawling around in the dust behind the TV, ripping out/replacing as many as five leads whenever I want to play a game on my 360, only to have to do it again when a good TV show comes on...

 

[kyleb]

Dave already mentioned time for development and implementation, then of course there are the costs for each of those and the cost added to production however that can be predicted to play out though time. Then of course there are market considerations, how many people can use it, how many people likely will be able to use it eventually, how many people wouldn't likely buy it without, and how many don't even know any better either way. That is just the tip of the hat as well and each of those are complicated questions in their own right.