MS's "secret weapon" against the PS3 (Arstechnica)

IMO I think this talk about the missing scaler is redundant without having some sort of basis how many are affected from this problem.

The only people seriously affected, are those, that have a TV that only accept a 1080i or 480p signal. What happens with these TVs if you view a TV station that signals at 720p? I presume the same thing that is bound to happen on the PS3 as well - it will be displayed at 480p. I'm not sure about the US, but in Europe, these TVs are clearly not "HD-Ready" - something that is obviously a requirement if you want to enjoy full definition on PS3.

The so-called "1080i" only TV's aren't actually 1080i only. Their tuners (should they have one) will accept a 720p broadcast (and may convert it to 1080i). It's that their external inputs don't support 720p. In North America, the problem lies that there is no specifications requirements for televisions to support via external physical inputs, and ATSC 53/E only covers terrestrial and cable broadcasts, so only the tuner has to meet that compliance.
 
I'd heard that dev boxes that went out used a Silicon Image chip for HDMI output, however I fail to see this on the PS3 motherboard pics, so I would guess that the display controller was one of the last chips to have been done.
In most pictures I've seen, the chip is covered with a heat spreader of some kind. It can be made out in this picture though (top middle), which was taken during the deconstruction of a retail Japanese unit:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1111/ps3_32.jpg

You can vaguely see the iconic Silicon Image logo in yellow. Although I can't find the source at the moment, I believe it was reported that the chip's model number is SiI9132. That is consistent with the rumours that the officially announced SiI9134 HDMI 1.3 chip was not to be used in the PS3, and yet it still would feature an SiI HDMI 1.3 product.
 
I'd heard that dev boxes that went out used a Silicon Image chip for HDMI output, however I fail to see this on the PS3 motherboard pics, so I would guess that the display controller was one of the last chips to have been done.

They still do use a Silicon Image chip (SiI9132CBU, which I imagine is an earlier version of the SiI9134)...
 
Best I can tell that was just sloppy planing as surely they could have went with something closer in pixel count to 1280x720, or just used the same 1280x720 with the rendering adjusted for 4:3 output.

I agree, and I'd like to think it was their tight schedule. I always got the impression that they were rushing to complete the game. Anyways, OT. :)
 
Additional interesting info, the motion control chip in sixaxis appears to be a SCEI creation, and not something like Analog Device.

It's not... There's a single axis gyro (a Murata EN-03R) wired to the SIXAXIS main board, and the little chip in the lower corner is a 3-axis accelerometer (HDK (Hokuriku) HAAM-325B) which is somewhat famous in some circles because of it's size (currently the smallest one available).
 
I've heard that the internal signals in the 360 is pure digital until it gets converted by Ana(log). Would it be easy for MS to put a digital chip instead and have an hdmi port? Sure this will cost more but COG is falling for the 360.
 
It's not... There's a single axis gyro (a Murata EN-03R) wired to the SIXAXIS main board, and the little chip in the lower corner is a 3-axis accelerometer (HDK (Hokuriku) HAAM-325B) which is somewhat famous in some circles because of it's size (currently the smallest one available).

Do you happen to know / are able to divulge why that is (3 + 1) axis? Help in separating translation / rotation?
 
Gyro will give a (exact) position, whereas accelerometers only cover a change. Movements under the accelerometer's sensitivity wil go unrecorded, and it'll be possible to move the controller slowly to an alternative position, thus screwing up all subsequent positioning. The gyro should be very sensitve to slight movements so I imagine adds to accuracy, though I don't know how a single axis would help. And interesting as this is, it's not really on topic!

Um...Sony's secret weapon - A gyro + 3 accelerometers!
 
Good Post

IMO I think this talk about the missing scaler is redundant without having some sort of basis how many are affected from this problem.

The only people seriously affected, are those, that have a TV that only accept a 1080i or 480p signal. What happens with these TVs if you view a TV station that signals at 720p? I presume the same thing that is bound to happen on the PS3 as well - it will be displayed at 480p. I'm not sure about the US, but in Europe, these TVs are clearly not "HD-Ready" - something that is obviously a requirement if you want to enjoy full definition on PS3.

Early adopters that had the bad luck of buying such a device are just as bad off when viewing any TV signal that is sent in 720p. Buying things that eventually fail on the market is usually something that most early-adopters have to be able to live with. Buying a TV that is not HD-ready and therefore does is not fully supported by the PS3 is in fact bad luck. With the mess that started off with HD, something like this was bound to happen.

Agree 100%
 
And hence "quality control" because not every HDTV owner has a "current mediocre and up TV".

Ah, Shifty cleared that up. I get you now. Yes, I think we agree more than we disagree. The 360 Scaler is useful for TVs with poor scalers (either quality or capability). Fair enough. I might be an eliteist (my PDP has one of the better scalers available) so in my POV, it don't matter. :)

A functional scaler means everyone, even those with crappy HDTVs, can get the best possible image their set can receive.

Responding to portion in bold. Not necessarily true as I understand it. It might be better for the TV to do the scaling. Is it any different than the situation between having your STB do the scaling for your TV broadcasts or your TV handling it? One scaler might be better than the other.

And personally, as a gamer who plays action oriented games like FPS online and racing games the thought of added latency is a negative. As a game device that will be delivering media that is latency sensative taking this into consideration in your design is a pretty important design choice.

Sure, but do mediocre TV scalers have this issue anymore? Even DLPs (Samsungs come to mind) no longer have noticable scaling delays I thought. Their early generations did, but I don't believe their current gen ones have.

I guess this means I should stop being such a tight wad and go buy a 1080p HDMI HDTV!

That's my next big purchase too! :)
 
The only people seriously affected, are those, that have a TV that only accept a 1080i or 480p signal. What happens with these TVs if you view a TV station that signals at 720p?
Where exactly do you think these particular TVs are getting the HDTV station signal from? AFAIK, none of the 1080i-only sets have tuners in there. People watch HDTV broadcasts from a cable/satellite/OTA box that outputs a 1080i signal over component.

I'm not sure about the US, but in Europe, these TVs are clearly not "HD-Ready" - something that is obviously a requirement if you want to enjoy full definition on PS3.
In the US and Canada, you don't need 720p support to be "HD-ready". 1080i support is sufficient, and given that all devices except the PS3 that output HD signals can output 1080i also, this makes sense. There's no physical resolution requirement either. ED plasmas were marketed as HD-ready IIRC.

Early adopters that had the bad luck of buying such a device are just as bad off when viewing any TV signal that is sent in 720p. Buying things that eventually fail on the market is usually something that most early-adopters have to be able to live with.
We're not only talking about early adopters. Even this past year many stores were selling RP CRTs at very low prices. Many enthusiasts still prefer CRT TVs for image quality, as only the best of the best today (DLP, SXRD) can match its blacks. Moreover, the PS3 is the only device that does output a signal in 720p without an option for 1080i. These particular TV owners can use upconverting DVD players, a PS2, a satellite box, HD-DVD players, BluRay players, and media-centre PC's without issue.

If I had the choice, I'm not really sure I would choose a scaler over a technical requirement to each software written to support at least a few sets of resolutions, especially when the market you are selling to features equipment that has a good-enough scaler on their own to the job. In anycase, I predict that this will be something that won't be mentioned in 1 or 2 years anymore and will be long forgotten (with or without a software solution by Sony)...
My hope is Sony can write a software scaler without issue. Simple bilinear upscaling should be a piece of cake (< 5% usage) for either RSX or the OS-reserved SPE.
 
ED plasmas were marketed as HD-ready IIRC

ED TV's are marked as HDTV compatible. Anything that isn't capable of running in the minimum of 720p (native) is marked at HDTV compatible. Anything that can run 720p or higher (native) is marked as HDTV ready.

There's a whole lot of tv's people are buying because they are cheap, yet barely have more lines of resolution then a regular 480p TV.
 
Zeckensack said:
It isn't useful to move it to software because you need it all the time.
I never argued with the HD scaling issue - I argued with the SDTV support, which Has to be in software, whether we like it or not.

You don't? You'll want to account for aspect ratios on the application end, whether you scale or not. A 2D puzzler would react to a change in aspect ratio in an entirely different way than a 3D game. You can't hide this information from the app.
Which was my point exactly - there is no such thing as automatic conversion to SDTV without compromising quality and/or playability of the title.
Developer has to explicitly implement support for SDTV if we want it to be good - and the option to downscale (in hardware) is there regardless of any external scaling chips.

The difference is still the same. You either have a common method of performing the scaling as per the parameters you require or you don't.
There's nothing common about how SDTV is supported on 360 thus far. So yes, the difference is all the same - I have to implement support for SDTV resolution in my code, if I choose to scale, and whether it's with the GPU or another chip doesn't change anything.

There's a certain other game that renders at 1280x1024 ("wrong" aspect ratio for any TV format) and scales that to anamorphic widescreen with slight supersampling.
Technique that was common place for many last generation titles, possibly even majority on some platforms - and none of them have done it through external scalers.

The issue here, without flexible, general scaling, is two-fold:
1)You can't scale -- duh
I'll need this one explained to me, because as I mentioned above, people have been doing scaling without it for past 6 years - I'd argue majority of PS2 library does it (back and front buffers have different sizes) in some way or another.

2)You can't output that native "improper" res and expect TVs to display it properly.
No - for that you need explicit support in the title - but the issue is still relatively trivial, all you need is to adjust frontbuffer size to match that of TV setting.

Again, I was never refuting the stupidity of not having some way to address HD resolution outputs. In particular, why Sony didn't have the foresight to address this through development guidelines if they messed up on hardware side, but that's another debate alltogether.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Acert93 said:
I don't think he was saying most 360 games are upscaled from 480p, at least that isn't what he intended to say.
Indeed I wasn't - I had no idea what I wrote could be misinterpreted so badly by anyone. I call the my not being native english excuse and all that :p

Shifty said:
Why not downsample
Well maybe visual improvements aren't really that noticeable, and performance tends to be better at native SDTV. Or maybe it's just a cunning conspiracy to force people to upgrade to HDTV. :p
 
Back
Top