PS3 launch presentation - Live now.
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
When I got my PS2, I was fully intending to use it as a substitute DVD player. Guess what I was using up until that point? My roommate's PS2. Which was also his only DVD player.dante said:ink: Ok, I stand corrected, but did you buy it with the intention of using it as a media center that occasionally plays games, or the other way around?
If I purchase a next generation console like this (which is unlikely since I just don't have the $$ to drop on something this frivolous at the moment), it will be specifically with the intention of using it as a HTPC and game console - with the gaming being equal to or LESS important than the HTPC aspect.
If you could hack a much bigger drive in there, you'd have yourself a hell of a media computer; an upconverting 1080p blu-ray player, high quality sound output, DVR capabilities, and super fast boot times. Yum.
Both. The games are obviously great, but the HTPC aspect kicks ass as well. I can even stream things from my mac and convert them from any format, on the fly.dante said:
For the PC, you have to have a win media box to stream video, and it will only stream WMVs. I have a dual boot setup for this. Regular xp setup will stream pictures and audio only. It is intentionally crippled. I am sure it won't be too long before the encryption is broken between the 360 and mce tho.
I also use it to control and stream live tv, from my mce install, to my tv. You can control everything via the xbox remote, I only really use it as a pvr though in this aspect. My tv displays tv from its own tuner quite well.
1080p "support" is pretty pointless without HDCP anyways, go go ps3.
The games look great, but claiming to output 1080p without having hdcp support is pretty stupid. "Technically we can stream HD content, only we decided not to make it possible".
Uh. What?Transcend said:1080p "support" is pretty pointless without HDCP anyways, go go ps3.
I seriously doubt the PS3 will ship without HDCP support. Where do you see this? I can find nothing on Google that indicates it won't support HDCP.
Well, there aren't a lot that support it, but there are some. It is also the limit for the standard so the support is important because it "future-proofs" the PS3 as far as HD resolutions go.dfinn said:
AFAIK, the standard simply defines the resolution standards, and progressive (p) or interlaced (i).dfinn said:
edit: to clarify, it's similar to saying that no bottom bracket standard defines a 73x118 bottom bracket - but the standards exist for 73mm shells, and 118 spindles, so there you go. I've been Googling the subject and can't find anything to the contrary.
Maybe he meant the transmission standards? That only applies to over the air broadcasts, which can't hit 1080p.
Not sure about the 1080p thing, i just remember having read it and going WTF??
As for the TVs, only mega high end ones right now (for the most part) support it. Displays however (my gateway for example) usually do it easily do to being higher rez. They also cost a buttload if you want a huge one.
And BV is correct. 1080p isn't outlined, as over the air broadcasts simply cannot push that high a signal. I believe it was an addendum to the original standard?
As for the TVs, only mega high end ones right now (for the most part) support it. Displays however (my gateway for example) usually do it easily do to being higher rez. They also cost a buttload if you want a huge one.
And BV is correct. 1080p isn't outlined, as over the air broadcasts simply cannot push that high a signal. I believe it was an addendum to the original standard?
so i gotta plunk down 600 for ps3 and another 5k for the tv,, yup,, ill be waiting in line camped out for that....
i will pre order and hustle em on ebay...
i will pre order and hustle em on ebay...
5k for a tv? You can get a nice 1080p set for about 3k or less. 24" hd monitors with all the inputs necessary go for about $1300.
The PS3 will be doing 1080P@60 fps in games. As for monitors / TVs, yeah, there arn't that many yet, but we've got until November before the thing is even released. I'll probably be buying a nice monitor rather than a 'TV', since I hardly watch regular TV anyway.
I sincerly doubt you will get a rock steady 60fps in 1080p in something like GT4 with lots of cars and scenery. It will choke and hiccup.Changleen said:
Right. But 1080P is still part of the HD standard, it's just not outlined for broadcasts.dfinn said:
yeah for joe schmoe.. if im out buying a new tv with the latest and greatest im gettin top o da line chit 50"+Transcend said:
Sure thing. You get yourself a plasma screen (as it's the only thing in that price range) and then you can have a game burn its GUI into the screen in a matter of hours.fiddy_ryder said:yeah for joe schmoe.. if im out buying a new tv with the latest and greatest im gettin top o da line chit 50"+
Awesome choice!
hey, now you talk about tvs...
i got a 1080p tv.
but i made the awful mistake of not buying one with a vga/dvi input. (composite only) so i use good ol s-video, but its a waste of resolution.
any way around that???
what video card would natively supports composite 1080???
i got a 1080p tv.
but i made the awful mistake of not buying one with a vga/dvi input. (composite only) so i use good ol s-video, but its a waste of resolution.
any way around that???
what video card would natively supports composite 1080???
How is it labeled a 1080p television if it has no inputs capable of that resolution? Only component, hdmi, DVI/vga will enable resolutions that high.
Can Svideo even push 480p?
Can Svideo even push 480p?
is says 1080p on one corner of the tv, and it said the same thing on the manual.Transcend said:
it accepts 2 component (i meant component, as on 3 cables, not composite!!!, my bad), 1 s-video, 3 rca and one cable.
i dont know if my svideo cable is even close to 480 (i ghetto riged one)... i have to use 800*600 to get decent enough tv-resolution to use the tv as a monitor....
but i dont want to waste 70 bucks for a 15ft svideo cable.. i want component 1080!!!
Ah ok, big difference between component and composite. Component will push 1080p easily, composite and Svideo, as far as I know, cannot push any sort of an HD signal.ALEXIS_DH said:
good. i made the mistake of using the wrong word.Transcend said:
anyway, i want to get component video from my computer to my tv. i´ve heard some ati cards can do that. but am lost in the space on the topic basicallly.
what video card would i need for that?
is a tv at 1080p really as sharp as a say a monitor at 12xx*1024???
i really dont have any hd source other than dvds (i´ve had this tv since january, yet i´ve seen like 4 dvd movies on it), mostly just cable tv (sucky sucky quality), but am considering getting directv (tough my favorite channels are local cable-only).
1080p is a resolution of 1920x1080. So it's actually much higher than your monitor resolution (if you're at 1280x1024).ALEXIS_DH said:
You need any video card that will output component video at 1080p. That's all, just look for it in the specs. I don't know what video cards will do that at the moment but it should be listed right there.
Or, you can use a DVI-to-component adapter:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814999903
Video cards, by nature, run "progressive scan" - so that should be all you need. That and a video card that will be fast enough to run 1920x1080 at a decent frame rate.
Not sure, i honestly don't have any HD sources running out of my computer. As you said, the easiest way woulda been DVI.ALEXIS_DH said:
The native resolution for DVDs is 480p when using a progressive scan DVD player. Otherwise, you just get a nice clean 480i signal. either way, you probably won't see a really big difference. You certainly won't get anything near 720 or 1080p. These will be output by HD dvd and Blue Ray.
As for resolution, it is 1080 lines high at 1080p, so it'd look like a computer running at 1080 pixels high. The difference is that the entire picture will refresh as once (progressive) as opposed to interlaced, where only half of the picture updates at once (every second line). This is why there is such a huge hit when going to progressive scan, the card has to pump out twice as much data at huge resolutions.
37" Sceptre that handles 1080p for only $1500... 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824112174
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824112174
Transcend said:
alrighty, sorry for the thread hijacking, but am learning a lot.
progressive > interlaced.
what about non-interlaced?
i´ve got a cheap ass dvd that came as a gift with the tv.
i´d like to use the tv as a permanent monitor, that was my original hope, but the closest 1080p tv with dvi input was like 900 bucks more and 4" less. and ocasionally for tv and movies.
plasmas of similar price range were widescreen (no wide signal in peru, other than movies, which i barely watch) and were 480p and only 42", and the good ones (50+", 1080p) were in the 6k range. thats why i dont have a dvi input.
tough, now looking back, it was a bad choice, because i didnt research enough, since i´ve been using the tv at a very blurry 480p and not improving anything, hoping i´ll just make the switch to native component 1080p at once.
this is what i get from ati. it says some cards have native component output thru the vga/dvi output.
http://www.ati.com/products/hdtvadapter/faq.html
opinions on them? is there any reason why the ones putting out component thru a dvi would be better than those from vga, or component is component quality no matter what?
i´ve got an agp only motherboard. the games i mostly play are old (one from 1999, and one from 2003). so no need for high end stuff. just sharp crystal clear signal to use my tv as a permanent monitor.
Non-interlaced = progressive.
Ideally, you want DVI, since it's a digital signal, there's no converting back and forth. The DVI-to-component adapter that I posted will work just as well as ATI's, and for less money.
HDTV is basically just the same thing that PC users have had for years, if you're outputting a resolution from your video card that's 1080 pixels high, you're outputting a 1080p signal.
Even though an S-video output may be on your card, it's not outputting the full resolution - it's designed strictly for output to TV.
Ideally, you want DVI, since it's a digital signal, there's no converting back and forth. The DVI-to-component adapter that I posted will work just as well as ATI's, and for less money.
HDTV is basically just the same thing that PC users have had for years, if you're outputting a resolution from your video card that's 1080 pixels high, you're outputting a 1080p signal.
Even though an S-video output may be on your card, it's not outputting the full resolution - it's designed strictly for output to TV.
yeah i saw that.binary visions said:
i bought a vga-component cable thinking it was just a matter of cables, but its a matter of signals.
that adapter is for a card that natively delivers component signal thru the dvi port. that´d be only the ones i quoted from the ati website.
other ati cards (like mine) wont work with that adapter.
ATI traditionally does weird stuff with cables and signals. Triple check to make sure you are getting the right one.
absolutely sure.Transcend said:
i´ve got the vga-component at home, tried a lof of times and it doesnt make anything, not even recognized.
the issue, is my card is not ati manufactured , is "ati powered". plus is a 9250, which is not listed as a card that can use the adapters according to ati website. so a new card seems to be the only solution.
in short, ati sucks.
am surfing nvidia website right now, to see if there is any nvidia card with component output (either thru adapter, or native)......
hey, i made a mistake.
my tv is not 1080p. is 1080i.
according to the website, it supports (480p / 720p / 1080i)
my tv is not 1080p. is 1080i.
according to the website, it supports (480p / 720p / 1080i)
Any DVI-out card will work with that adapter.ALEXIS_DH said:
I don't know what, if any, cards do native component output.
it seems like the same as this adapter.binary visions said:
http://www.svideo.com/hdtvaiwr8500.html
what a headache. am surfing the web trying to find a detailed recipe, something like....
1) buy video card brand A, model B in X store.
2) buy adapter/cable model X, brand Y in Y store.
3) connect,
4) turn them on
5) watch....
or someone with a working setup i can copy....
but there are so many words that look like 1337 speak to me...
am definately gonna write a step by step guide for the pc-2-hdtv n00b on ridemonkey once i get to hook it up.
The burn-in feature is almost non-existent now on most newer high end plasmas ($4000+). Most utilize some sort of prevention like Sony which has a pixel revolving generator that randomly moves pixels around if it detects that an image is being static too long in any area. My Pioneer has something similar. Obviously, this is not not something that can be seen as it is taking place.Transcend said:
I have a 50" Pioneer and I played Condemned for about 8 hrs straight when I first got the 360. This game has a health meter that stays on screen in the same location for the whole game and no burn-in.
Aside from this, I watch Sportcenter and news stations which constatntly display a banner with no worries. However, a friend bought one of those cheap Maxent or Visio or whatever Costco brand and got image burn from CNN after 20 minutes. Seriously. He returned it and upgraded to a good high end type (Pioneer) and no worries.
I would like to get an LCD in this size eventually as they become available, but for now a new high end Plasma is not bad. DLP tvs are great, but obviously bigger if in it for the "flat" aspect. I am however one of the few people that experience the "rainbow effect" phenomenon when viewing a DLP tv, but not a DLP projector. I am getting a DLP High Def projector soon anyways for my downstairs room which will have my 360, a Nintendo Wii and a PS3.
By the way, the PS3 will also have compatability and whatever tricks they may have up their sleeve to sync with the PSP.
the cost of all the new systems makes me glad that i gave up video games.
Slayer, that won't work.
Imagine you are playing Halo for example. The HUD (ammo, radar circle etc) stays the same as long as you are playing the game. Now imagine playing this for hours at a time...The rotation only works while the image is static, IE: you aren't watching live programming, playing a game etc.
This does indeed cause burn in, although it is much more prevalent on lower end plasmas - as they completely suck.
The DLP rainbow effect only appears with certain types of screen coatings, and certain models (and apparently projectors that use the same technology). It also depends on how sensitive your eyes are, as you mentioned and from the angle it is being viewed at. Conversely, some people will see an odd screen door effect as well.
edit: Just read your thing about condemned, it WILL eventually burn in. 8 hours is not near long enough to do it however.
Imagine you are playing Halo for example. The HUD (ammo, radar circle etc) stays the same as long as you are playing the game. Now imagine playing this for hours at a time...The rotation only works while the image is static, IE: you aren't watching live programming, playing a game etc.
This does indeed cause burn in, although it is much more prevalent on lower end plasmas - as they completely suck.
The DLP rainbow effect only appears with certain types of screen coatings, and certain models (and apparently projectors that use the same technology). It also depends on how sensitive your eyes are, as you mentioned and from the angle it is being viewed at. Conversely, some people will see an odd screen door effect as well.
edit: Just read your thing about condemned, it WILL eventually burn in. 8 hours is not near long enough to do it however.
I agree that it is something to be aware of, but unless you spend ridiculous amounts of time (like my 8 hrs isn't) or are a moron and pause your game overnight, then it really is nothing to worry about anymore. Actually if I did pause mine, it would go into a screen saver mode.Transcend said:
Take it for whatever it is worth, but here are a fewcomments from Cnet:
You might have also heard that plasmas suffer from screen burn in, an affliction not as commonly associated with LCDs. Screen burn in occurs when an image is left too long on a screen, resulting in a ghost of that image burned in permanently. Newer plasmas are less susceptible to this thanks to improved technology and other features such built-in screen savers, but we still hear anecdotal reports here of burn-in with new plasmas.
One of plasma technology's known issues is something called burn-in. It happens when your television shows a still image or an icon for so long that its "ghost" remains on the screen. For example, if a stock ticker or a news crawl continuously runs along the bottom of your display, that strip may be burned into your set. The same applies to watching an excessive amount of standard TV (4:3) on a wide-screen (16:9) model; the vertical bars to either side of the picture could become permanent. Manufacturers have taken steps to prevent burn-in, building in screensavers and other technologies. And you can virtually eliminate the danger by not leaving still images on the screen and reducing your contrast setting to 50 percent or less.
Burn-in: You may have heard that plasma has a couple of drawbacks. One such downside is called burn-in, which occurs when an image--such as a stock ticker, a network logo, or letterbox bars--gets etched permanently onto the screen because it sits in one place too long. In our experience, the danger of burn-in has been greatly exaggerated, and people with normal viewing habits have nothing to worry about. The potential for burn-in is greatest during the first 100 or so hours of use, during which time you should keep contrast rather low (less than 50 percent) and avoid showing static images or letterbox bars on the screen for hours at a time. After this initial phase, plasma should be as durable as any television technology. Many panels also have burn-in-reduction features, such as screensavers and pixel orbiting, or settings to treat burn-in once it occurs, such as causing the screen to go all-white.