nAo talks about Heavenly Sword (You need to read this)

[Moloch]

that 5k resolution is 2000p, only with extra width. The single figure resolution is invariably for number of vertical lines. Also, for cinema maybe higher resoltuions will one day appear. But in almost all homes 1080p is the limit of size versus resolving power of the viewers. If there is another definition increase it'll likely only be one more resolution upgrade from 1080p. By the time you have a 40" 4000x2000 TV, you probably won't physically be able to see any difference between that and a 40" 1080p set, and certainly an 8000x4000 40" display will improve nothing over the lower resolution 2000p. I'd say we'll only get one more resolution before framerates become key, XD or Ultimate HD or whatever PR twist they give it, and then maybe some totally new tech that doesn't worry about being tied to a High Definition type name. Thus the HD name fiasco can be solved with HD > EHD > XD as probably the preferred choies (High def, Enhanced High def, Extreme Def).

It's also worth pointing out that when you say 'today' you mean in prototype form, and the actual rollout is suggested in the article at 5-10 years

Sure you will, just gotta have your eyes glued to the set

 

[zed]

Or maybe we should just keep calling them 720p and 1080p...

whos we? the problem is the majority of ads u see dont adhere to this rule. (i can provide a couple of examples if u wish)
usually they refer just to hi-definition tv and dont say 720p etc
its marketing of course thats why u see the following in certain 'restaurants'
large - medium - regular (aka small)

 

[kyleb]

whos we? the problem is the majority of ads u see dont adhere to this rule. (i can provide a couple of examples if u wish)
usually they refer just to hi-definition tv and dont say 720p etc

That is because the standard for HD displays is 720 lines or over, so it says it is an HD display then it fits that standard. Adds often don't list the contrast ratio, displayable color limits, or many other factors that can be even far important than the difference between 720p or 1080p either; but surely you don't expect them to come up for a new lable for every combination of all those factors.

 

[hey69]

does anybody know why the lcd panel manufactureres released the 1366x768 resolution? Is the sideeffect of using certain panels in certain resolution that makes it this way? I only found ONe panel at mediamarkt here that was native 720p

 

[_xxx_]

Most displays I see in stores say "HD ready" and not "HD". Which is not "real" HD, but can receive HD signals which get downscaled though.

EDIT:

1366x768 resolution

I guess they started off with the old 1024x768 and just made it wider to fit 16:9.

 

[LunchBox]

AFAIK 1080p is being marketed with the label "True HD"... I was at good guys a few days ago.

 

[Gollum]

does anybody know why the lcd panel manufactureres released the 1366x768 resolution? Is the sideeffect of using certain panels in certain resolution that makes it this way? I only found ONe panel at mediamarkt here that was native 720p

I noticed that too. When I was browsing the electronic shops last week I saw literally dozens upon dozens of "HD ready" TV sets (they're finally dominating stores here thanks to the 2006 WC). Like 90% seemed to have a native resolution of 1366x768. Finding a TV with 720p as native resolution was possible, but took patience, and finding higher res HDTVs was even harder.

While its commendable that people argue in favour of 1020p or higher res HDTVs being the only real ones, real world facts just traight punch every ideology of that kind out of the window. It will take even these "sub-standard" HDTVs many more years to penetrate into the mainstream households, add several more years to that if you want the "real" HDTVs to become standard. Thus it bears no relevance on the future of both HD next-gen consoles, both will R.I.P. before resolutions of 1020p or above will be any kind of real-world standard IMO.

 

[London Geezer]

Most displays I see in stores say "HD ready" and not "HD". Which is not "real" HD, but can receive HD signals which get downscaled though.

EDIT:


I guess they started off with the old 1024x768 and just made it wider to fit 16:9.

In Europe, HD-Ready means what in the US is HDTV, except we don't have HD tuners. HD-Ready sets can take AND display HD signals.

In Europe, HD Compatible means the set can take HD signals but they get downscaled to 480p (old plasmas).

And yes, now we all have 1366*768 because in manufacturing stage, it's cheaper and quicker for them to take the 1024*768 panels and just make them "longer" until they reach the 16:9 ratio (they just need to cut the panel differently).

 

[mckmas8808]

And yes, now we all have 1366*768 because in manufacturing stage, it's cheaper and quicker for them to take the 1024*768 panels and just make them "longer" until they reach the 16:9 ratio (they just need to cut the panel differently).

Does this create a difference in picture quality?

 

[London Geezer]

Does this create a difference in picture quality?

This has been discussed at great length on forums around the universe... Basically the problem with this silly resolution is that everything that goes into the TV gets scaled to 1366*768, unless it's a 1360*768 (via PC). That causes issues because scaling always creates issues, but to be perfectly honest, all HDTVs with that resolution produce amazing images when fed HD signals, so in the end if you feed them with HD video, they look great.
Obviously you'll always hear the "experts" telling you how it's utterly unacceptable not to have 1:1 pixel mapping, but to be honest, normal people can hardly tell the difference.
Feeding SD images is a whole other issue which depends on the TV and the internal processing involved.

For the record, so far only the Sony X-series (the top of the top of the range) can uccept 1920*1080 through HDMI (with a DVI-HDMI cable) input from PCs, giving 1:1 pixel mapping at that resolution, and it's scarily good. It also has options to have 1:1 pixel mapping on other sources, so you can have that from broadcasts, giving the best possible picture quality pixel by pixel. The TV also costs a whole lot of money, so it's hardly material to the discussion at hand...

 

[Arwin]

And yes, now we all have 1366*768 because in manufacturing stage, it's cheaper and quicker for them to take the 1024*768 panels and just make them "longer" until they reach the 16:9 ratio (they just need to cut the panel differently).

That's an interesting take. I thought they did it because it allows for better upscaling from PAL resolutions.

 

[TheChefO]

For the record, so far only the Sony X-series (the top of the top of the range) can uccept 1920*1080 through HDMI (with a DVI-HDMI cable) input from PCs, giving 1:1 pixel mapping at that resolution, and it's scarily good. It also has options to have 1:1 pixel mapping on other sources, so you can have that from broadcasts, giving the best possible picture quality pixel by pixel. The TV also costs a whole lot of money, so it's hardly material to the discussion at hand...

I heard Westinghouse also has a 1080p display that will accept a native 1080p image as well. I don't know if the input is hdmi or not though.

 

[mckmas8808]

I heard Westinghouse also has a 1080p display that will accept a native 1080p image as well. I don't know if the input is hdmi or not though.

Technically there will be a lot of HDTVs that will accept a native 1080p image this year.

 

[kyleb]

And yes, now we all have 1366*768 because in manufacturing stage, it's cheaper and quicker for them to take the 1024*768 panels and just make them "longer" until they reach the 16:9 ratio (they just need to cut the panel differently).

It seems you forgot the part where they use their special enlarging ray-guns to make those 16:9 1366x768 panels which are taller than any 4:3 1024x768 displays.

Seriously though, there are quite a few reasons why 1366x768 is used including one that a lot of people here are overlooking; good upscaling to a higher resolution can produce a more pleasing image than outputting directly at lower one.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

I heard Westinghouse also has a 1080p display that will accept a native 1080p image as well. I don't know if the input is hdmi or not though.

It does infact have an hdmi input, along with a couple of dvi inputs. It's a very very nice display. I did all the research on it for my friend's TV purchase.

Nite_Hawk

 

[mckmas8808]

It does infact have an hdmi input, along with a couple of dvi inputs. It's a very very nice display. I did all the research on it for my friend's TV purchase.

Nite_Hawk

Have you seen it in action?

 

[kyleb]

If he means the LVM-42W2, I've seen them in action. In most cases I'd recomend a good 42" plasma over that Westy for a whole host of reasons; but as far as LCDs go, the LVM-42W2 is respectable display and a bargin for the asking price.

I've also seen a 37" 1080p Westy which I don't recall the model number on, and I wasn't impressed with that one bit. So be warned, just becuase a display might be from the same company doesn't mean it's going to give you similar results.

 

[wco81]

For the record, so far only the Sony X-series (the top of the top of the range) can uccept 1920*1080 through HDMI (with a DVI-HDMI cable) input from PCs, giving 1:1 pixel mapping at that resolution, and it's scarily good. It also has options to have 1:1 pixel mapping on other sources, so you can have that from broadcasts, giving the best possible picture quality pixel by pixel. The TV also costs a whole lot of money, so it's hardly material to the discussion at hand...

That's the Euro model of the Bravia LCD?

It may render all the pixels but it's still an LCD meaning not as good on some metrics like black levels compared to other types of displays?

 

[cthellis42]

I must say, I'm really enjoying this nAo talk about Heavenly Sword.

 

[kyleb]

That's the Euro model of the Bravia LCD?

It may render all the pixels but it's still an LCD meaning not as good on some metrics like black levels compared to other types of displays?

Yep, I swear the way some people talk it seems like they'ed take a black and white 1080p display over the best of lower resolution displays on the market.