HDMI output for X360

That was likely precisely the issue - all of it was a distraction that was unnecessary for what they were aiming for the console at its launch period. Things have settled down now, though, content is shipping, HDMI/HDCP transmitters are in the marketplace (and probably dropping in price now) and it can be revisited without those constraints.

 

There's a diagram floating around indicating it only has analog output. Furthermore, no digital video cable has ever been released for the 360, despite the fact that almost every analog cable imaginable has.

 

If the box could support HDMI, then why not come out with it.

One of the main highlights of the machine is its being able to display high definition games.

While a good number (my 1st one) of early HDTV's did not have HDMI, practically all do now.

I doubt it has the capability.

 

Due to the fact that MS clearly had plans to introduce an external HD-DVD drive, they needed to think long and hard about the inclusion of HDMI prior to the first console's release. If they got the idea from the HD-DVD consortium that they werent going to allow HD content over component then its very likely MS would have included HDMI (or know that a cable could be delivered later). If they didnt solve this problem prior to shipping, then the current crop of units would have been non-upgradeable with HD-DVD drives. I dont think it had anything to do with 'running out of time' because their longer term strategy required that they think about it (and resolve it) prior to launch.

Once they realized they wouldnt need HDMI for games or movies then i'm sure they were happy to not deal with the headaches of including HDMI at launch (and the added cost to the console) but thats not to say that they wouldnt have done so if it was intrinsic to their strategy.

 

I've not heard of any indications that they had plans for the HD-DVD drive until after it was released.

BTW - this isn't really that much of a concern as even if they had decided to include HDMI from the get go it would probably have been done by an external chip. PS3 is being released a year after 360 and, as far as I'm aware, uses a Silicon Image chip for HDMI output.

 

Well i can say is this:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/sep05/09-26HDDVDPromotionGroupPR.mspx

They were involved with the HD optical space way before this as they developed iHD. I just can't see how they wouldnt be thinking about leveraging the 360 the same way the PS3 is. Just seems pretty obvious to me, but youre right theres no hard proof i guess.

 

I wouldn't necessarily pin decisions made for the PC group as decisions for the 360 group.

 

Is there any source suggesting as much? The SiI press release about their new HDMI 1.3 spec components mentioned PS3 as supporting 1.3 and their chips enabling other devices to be compliant with the format, but didn't say or even suggest their chip was the one in the PS3. Only the fact that no other HDMI 1.3 tranmitter chip has been announced by anyone suggests it is in PS3. It'd be nice to have some confirmation, and that might also point to PS3 not being assembled en masse due to limited numbers of the output chips.

 

HDMI - much to do about nothing?

Sorry to be such a noob, but how much better is HDMI over VGA?
Is it 5 - 10% sharper or more?
Perhaps MS thought VGA would be good enough?

I have my 360 connected by VGA and it looks stunning...

However, I can't wait for MS to release an HDMI cable....

 

They were also one of the first, if not a founding member of AACS.

With all their DRM work, there was no secret about how next-gen optical disc was going to go.

I think it was a cost issue. They doubled the RAM at the last minute and they didn't commit to a SKU with a hard drive until relatively late.

HDMI support would have been just another added cost. It also would have invited questions why they would have a protected digital output port but no self-contained way to play protected content.

 

VGA is analog. HDMI is basically DVI+digital sound out via one cable. Yes, it is the future but it had quite a rough upbringing. Even today where are handshake issues, HDMI errors, compatiability issues and so on. It's certainly the way forward until the next great thing!

HDMI is not a guarantee in better picture, for now. For example, my Comcast DVR box does a better job with HD feed and esp. SD feed using component than HDMI but the opposite for my HD DVD player. Fun eh?

 

Dave,
Amirm from MS, who regularly posts on AVS has pretty much said all of MS's focus for HD-DVD was initially on XB360, that's why Vista doesn't even have HD-DVD playback yet, because their resources are focused on launching the HD-DVD add-on.

If it was on PC space, why isn't Vista or XP getting MS built playback first?

 

That's a head-scratcher because for the past year or two, he's been talking about Protected Video Path and other infrastructure requirements for the OS and hardware architecture to meet all the AACS requirements.

And he specifically said software players on XP were unlikely and would have to wait for Vista.

I think it's likely a licensing cost issue in part. They don't want to bundle a software player with the OS just as they didn't have DVD playback out of the box for XP, IIRC, nor MP3 encoding, because of the royalties involved.

Maybe they will go for providing the infrastructure -- such things as signed drivers -- but leave it to third-parties to make the player software for Vista. Then ultimately, the users pay the incremental costs for all the codec royalties, AACS, etc.

 

I was specifically talking about comments like these:

So basically, their priorities are on XB360 and third party playback. This suggests to me that XB360 HD-DVD was in the cards for a long time, especially given how much MS is pushing HD-DVD and MS needing their own CE device for HD-DVD. But it also suggests to me that their architecture (esp Xenos) was the best they could do given budget, silicon process, and timeline. It clearly isn't built optimally for HD resolutions, given the amount of eDRAM that would be the perfect fit for 720p 4xAA, and the lack of HDMI spells "rush". If XB360 had launched this year, instead of last year, it might have had HDMI and HD-DVD. And who knows, maybe the launch titles would take better advantage of tiling AA.

I hate the fact that playback isn't builtin in Vista for example. I bet that Leopard wil have BRD and HD-DVD capability in the future. Apple is more serious about making stuff work out of the box and in a consistent UI without requiring OEMing a bunch of third party stuff by resellers.

 

Initial announcements were concerned with the PC/Vista - this ws backed up at this years WinHEC:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/may06/05-24WinHECHDDVDPR.mspx

Its hardly surprising that the focus is in 360 now as they have some hard targets to meet with that, whereas support for Vista can be added at a later date. As Dean's book points out, there was never any consideration for anything but DVD for 360 in its development period.

 

Please note the differences where people are quoting others, it is HD DVD, not HD-DVD. So, say it with me, HD DVD, thx Mgmt. You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

There's no way to offer any precise figure here - it all depends, as the popular saying goes. Analog VGA can span anything from crispy sharpness to muddy dishwater in picture quality, depending on the quality of the RAMDAC, the passive components on the graphics card, connectors and cable quality, and the internals of your display device. Too many variables to offer any general figures.

Generally speaking, the higher your resolution and refresh rate, the more difficult it is to provide a good picture with analog signalling, particulary over a longer cable. Noise from outside, cable impedance and resistance etc starts to become a big issue.

The 360 doesn't run at a particulary high resolution, and the refresh rate is very limited. A decent VGA cable is therefore enough to provide a good picture. Should you need a longer connection however and start to use extenders etc, well, then all bets might be off.

It's not the fault of the interconnect that it is being implemented badly by consumer goods manufacturers. When was the last time you heard of a VGA card not working correctly with a PC monitor?

You can't use your junky cable box or whatever as some kind of a measuring stock for HDMI picture quality. Who knows what that thing does internally to the image, there could be an internal DAC-ADC between the framebuffer and the TDMI transmitter for all we know.

DVI/HDMI allows the framebuffer to be sent straight, in a purely uncompromised, unaffected digital format for the best possible image quality on both digital and analog displays. If the hardware in question doesn't do this, then it's not the fault of the interconnect!

 

Agreed but the point is (i think) that the reality of the situation is that there are plenty of junky cable boxes, dvd players, set top boxes, etc out there implementing HDMI poorly. So while in its proper implementation HDMI is superior, at the moment it seems to be challenging for CE manufacturers to do so.

 

I have a Denon DVD player with HDMI and its been a pain in the arse since I have had it. The HDMI connection not withstanding if it gives better images than Component needs some fixes. The cable is prone to moving in either the output or input socket due to the weight of the cable itself, theres nothing to click or fix HDMI in place. This leads to unstable pictures and sound and total drop outs of both. Load of complaints about HDMI can be found on AV forums.