Wouldn't 1080p more difficult than 1080i if you were pushing more than 30 frames per second?

1080i is always 60 half frames per second.. 1080p can be up to 60 full frames per second.

Presumably something like Hexic or Lumines would look better at 1080p/60 than at 1080i, just because of the higher framerate.

I think the news that Resistance is going back to 720p is a sign that the 720/1080 tradeoff exists and is huge.  I have a 1080p TV, that takes 1080p over vga, and the VGA cable.  But I'd still rather have games render natively at 720p with lots of eye candy than at 1080p without it, so I'm glad Resistance is 720p and I'm glad Saints Row is 720p.

But I do think simple XBLA games could easily be 1080p without any loss in goodies, and I bet games like Table Tennis could also have been 1080p.  

I suppose it could, in theory, be a simple patch to enable the 360 to render natively at 1080p for some games.  I might be looking forward to that patch.

You're assuming here that the graphics chip is not capable of field rendering - and that is not necessarily a valid assumption.  There have been previous graphics chips which had knowledge of interlacing and so, for example, a 480i screen was actually rendered into the frame buffer with half the number of rows in order to save memory.  It's true!

I'm not saying the PS3 does this.  I'm just saying.

:-)

These are things I've been wondering for a while... but no one has answered them well enough:

So, I have a Toshiba HDTV (it has HDMI, but not vga...), and it only has two resolutions: 540p and 1080i (the same resolution, just p or i).

Now, from what I'm reading above, it looks like I could be getting better framerates if I lower my 360 to 720p.

The only question is, what would I set my TV to? I would assume 1080i... the console could output 720p and the tv could upconvert it...

Any ideas?

Thanks!

The Xbox 360 renders at 720p regardless of what you set it to. If you have a 1080i/p TV then it's simply a matter of whether you want the Xbox 360 or your TV to upscale (excluding the few 1080p games that might be made).

James -- that's not correct. The 1080p support announced on the 360 means that it supports a 1920x1080 buffer, outputting to 1080p if your set supports it. Games can be designed to use this or they can upscale from 720p. For 720p games, you're right--then it's a decision of which device you want to hande the upscaling (the 360 or your TV).

Last time I checked, there was only 1 tv on the market capable of accepting a 1080p input. Your expensive sony 1080p tv? don't accept the input, it takes a 720p input and upscales it to 1080p making it look worse(has to guess what's between the lines). The only TV that accepted 1080p input was the mitsubishi DLp and only through a computer connection then.

Adrian, several manufacturers make 1080p, Westinghouse makes a whole line of 1080p plasmas, for example.

Sharp, LG, JVC, Samsung, Mitsubishi, Sony, Westinghouse, Fujitsu, HP, Panasonic, Pioneer and Sceptre all make 1080p displays/projectors.  

Oh, and all of the above can accept a 1080p source over at least one connection.

This entire article assumes that games today are being rendered at 1920x1080, and then interlaced. However, systems like the Xbox 360 actually render a "squished" image at 1920x540, and then double it to get a 1080i signal. The PS3 does the same thing. It doesn't alternate fields when doing this. It just doubles the vertical resolution to make the image not squished, but it means that each line is doubled. It's not that noticeable at that screen res, but it's there.

This is also why GT4 on the Playstation 2 could handle a 1080i output. The only game on the system to do so, I believe. But it couldn't do 720p, even though the system could theoretically put that out over component, because presumably that would actually require more power than 1080i would.

There's a sucker born every minute.

The problem with HD technology is if the "last time I checked..." was more than 6 months ago, your information is out of date.

Today, there are many sets available right now at retail outlets such as Best Buy, etc. that accept and fully display the 1920x1080i/p signal without scaling. Sony XBR2 sets, Samsung 4x96 series, Westinghouse has a couple, as does the Sharp Aquos line, in plasma there is the Pioneer FHD1. There are others, and they are all new within the last 6 months (refer to www.avsforums.com).

xbox games list on the back the native resolutions that the game was designed for. Oblivion is one that was has the higher 1080i resolution capability. A game that does not list 1080i on the back will be upscaling to display on a 1080 supporting HDTV.

Seeing as I just bought a new Sony SXRD, it's true LAST YEAR's (05) XBR could NOT accept 1080p input, even though it was a 1080p native screen.  However, the new a2000's and XBR2's both accept 1080p via HDMI, however not VGA.  I've got my PC setup to it at 1920x1080 on DVI->HDMI, and its great.  However, 360's 1080p capabilities completely uninterest me until it can output it via HDMI.  Becuase of all the TV's that support 1080p input, most have HDMI, many have VGA(mine doesnt...damn), and almost NONE support it through component... So at the moment I'm just letting my 360 upscale to 1080i, and the tv deinterlace to 1080p.

The comment about rendering a "squished 1920x540" image is incorrect.

Please re-read the article, it explicitly states that the 360 doesn't do this but it has been a technique used in past systems.

One thing to keep in mind is that even if the console outputs 1080i correctly, a very large proportion of HDTVs available today do not correctly de-interlace the image, resulting in a similar "doubling" type problem. Here's a link to www.hometheatermag.com that discusses the issue and shows test results of recent TVs:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup//1106hook/

First fix the framerate and screen tearing problems at 720p before crapping on other consoles.

Thank you.

The new Splinter Cell supports 1080p on the Xbox 360.  Once it's out, we'll all be able to judge for ouselves the difference between 720p and 1080p/i.

The only thing clear to me from reading this is that the author doesn't fully understand the difference between 1080i and 1080p.

Rendering 1080i means you render exactly 1/2 of the full frame pixels each time (alternating between odd and even rows.)  This means 1080i requires calculating exactly 50% of the pixels for 1080p.

For digital applications interpolation is often done on the interlaced frames so that a buffer has the full number of pixels but interpolation is never the same as true data.

Huh, I never considered that all 1080 sources would have to be rendered and then interlaced, so there's no cost trade-off between interlaced and progressive. For some reason I was just assuming a field-rendering setup (iirc this is how SLI setups work).

I'm not too concerned with 1080p for gaming, I would much rather have a better looking more detailed/processed image than one with less detail and possibly at a slower framerate.

All I can see myself using 1080p for, will be with HD-DVD player and future Marketplace content that will eventually turn up in 1080p (although this hasn't been confirmed).

ive only got a black and white tv so it dont make much difference to me!

Just about every 360 game I've seen had a *** framerate and tearing problems.

Forget 1080p. And consider going lower than 720p if it's killing framerate and therefore hurting *gameplay*!

It's shocking that on 'next-gen' consoles, 30fps is about the best you can expect even for *racing games*!

Current HD gaming truly sucks.

PS3 is capable of rendering at native 1080p which is an impossible mission for xbox360.

That's why Sony has continued harping on 1080p as being "TrueHD".

Bruce Dawson I have a simple question if you could ask bruce. if 1080p reduces  the visual clarity of the game compared to the 720p version, Why then does the 1080p version of Playstation 3 NBA 2k6 look slightly better than the 720p Xbox 360 version of NBA 2k6 even though the looks are not about resolution, they are the extra effects added into the game.

Secondly why arent developers utilizing unified shaders properly? I have heard a major API update is coming to developers, is this true?

> Wouldn't 1080p more difficult than 1080i if you were pushing more than 30 frames per second?

Either way you are rendering 1920x1080, so it's the same.

> But I do think simple XBLA games could easily be 1080p without any loss in goodies

Yep, they don't need to spend a lot of time per pixel, so they could run at 1920x1080.

> You're assuming here that the graphics chip is not capable of field rendering

No, the article doesn't assume it isn't possible. It specifically says that it isn't desirable. The display chips on any reasonable console will do some very careful averaging of even and odd lines (different fields) in order to reduce the interlaced flicker. Field rendering makes this impossible, and therefore field rendering is not desireable.

> Now, from what I'm reading above, it looks like I could be getting better framerates if I lower my 360 to 720p.

No, because the game can render at one resolution and then it is converted to your requested output resolution. Most Xbox 360 games render at 720p, so changing your Xbox 360 to 720p will probably make no difference, to performance or image quality.

> James -- that's not correct. The 1080p support announced on the 360 means

> that it supports a 1920x1080 buffer, outputting to 1080p if your set supports it.

No, the game decides on the frame buffer size. Then the console outputs that frame buffer at the resolution you have requested (480i, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p). Adding 1080p support to the display settings doesn't not affect the frame buffer size.

> This entire article assumes that games today are being rendered at 1920x1080

Yep, because otherwise you get excessive flicker and other undesirable artifacts.

> The only thing clear to me from reading this is that the author doesn't fully

> understand the difference between 1080i and 1080p.

> Rendering 1080i means you render exactly 1/2 of the full frame pixels each time

I thought the article addressed this. It's called field rendering and it causes problems, like increased flicker. It also requires a rock solid 60 fps, which is difficult on modern games because of their complexity. Yes, games could do field rendering. Yes, it helps the performance problems of 1080 resolutions. But, since it makes games look worse (flicker really *sucks*) I really doubt it is a good idea.

> PS3 is capable of rendering at native 1080p which is an impossible mission for xbox360.

Given that PS3 has about the same graphical horsepower of the Xbox 360 (less, say some sources) this is a rather hopeful claim. Do you have any reason to believe that PS3 can handle 1920x1080 better than Xbox 360, or is this just based on Sony's unsubtantiated bragging.

"> PS3 is capable of rendering at native 1080p which is an impossible mission for xbox360."

What kinda idiotic remark was that

THATS WHAT THE DASHBOARD UPGRADE IS ENABLING full native 1080p ... so if a developer wants to use it they can.....

1080p is not some mythical magical resolution, most high end computers handle it stop being lame.

....

Now i hate to be an ass here but if the 360 cant handle the visuals the ps3 can... why does cod3 look better on the 360... why is the ai better on the exact same looking version of assassin's creed on the 360... so stop pertending that the ps3 is some masterful machine.... cell is not the holy grail so stop acting as if it is. plain and simple

...

games normally render at 720p but a few chose to render native 1080i but very few because they can get better visuals in 720p than in the 1080... its a developers choice of balance, between resolution and visual effects... simple as that

Wow. Incredibly interesting! I always thought 1080p was massively tougher than 1080i from what most so-called "geeks" say, but now that I read this, everything makes so much more sense.

I love reading the responses, because now it's so obvious how people are tripped up on this issue. Example:

"Rendering 1080i means you render exactly 1/2 of the full frame pixels each time (alternating between odd and even rows.)  This means 1080i requires calculating exactly 50% of the pixels for 1080p."

^^^...but the problem is those even and odd lines. You DO render half the pixels... but you have to do it twice. Seems so astoundingly simple now.

The real issue that I feel comes up is still framerates versus the human eye, though. Unless this is also mistaken, I believe the chief difference in the "feel" of interlaced versus progressive is the classic debate about TV screens versus PC monitors. A TV screen, with interlacing, can show an incredibly fluid (if less clear) image at maybe 24 frames per second. But a computer monitor could run at 60+ and seem relatively jerky, even with superior picture, because monitors tend to draw in progressive (again, maybe I'm off- this debate leaves me challenging my basic notions on everything here).

Doesn't this still mean that 1080p has to render higher framerates for smooth action compared to similar effect at 1080i? (yes, I realize there's more to TV and film smoothness than just interlacing alone, but I thought the effect was still non-negligible).

GTHD is underwhelming? Cop yourself on. Sony must be doing a good job marketing this point if you're STILL posting about this. Last time you came off looking pretty bad, and I doubt this will work out much better.

"Given that PS3 has about the same graphical horsepower of the Xbox 360 (less, say some sources) this is a rather hopeful claim. Do you have any reason to believe that PS3 can handle 1920x1080 better than Xbox 360, or is this just based on Sony's unsubtantiated bragging."

Again, most games on Xbox 360 seem to struggle to reach a stable 30fps at 720p. And this is a year after the release.

The fact that devs are letting run games succesfully at 1080p on an unreleased console gives the impression that there is a difference. Wether it is the raw power, ease of use of the hardware or even the quality of the dev, I don't know.

Games and systems already are out that support 1080-and-up resolutions (hmmm, playing Quake 4 on a Mac Pro with a 30" Cinema Display...).

haha, MS and it's yes-men are pathetic, scrambling to fling mud at sony in the midst of their Xbox 360 meltdown (litterally and fiquartively, what's the defect rate on those things, 25%?).

I'm still wondering why my SD plasma can display 1080i better than 480p. If you were to see it, you would understand. The picture is much clearer. 720p doesn't look as good though.

yeah...lets talk about the ps3 instead of the xbox3.......60

microsoft sucks

"Given that PS3 has about the same graphical horsepower of the Xbox 360 (less, say some sources) this is a rather hopeful claim. Do you have any reason to believe that PS3 can handle 1920x1080 better than Xbox 360, or is this just based on Sony's unsubtantiated bragging."

Tiling is going to absolutely suck for higher resolutions aka 1080p. Some devs have been having enough trouble hitting 720p thanks to its quirks! I even recall Xenos's designer admitting that ATi's contemporary non-eDram based PC GPUs would likely have the edge over Xenos for high resolutions like 1600x1200 (which is the same number of pixels as 1080p, funnily enough). That comment didn't seem signifcant at the time, but it takes on whole new relevancy now given how things are turning out.

I think you definitely will see good looking 1080p native games on 360, but I wonder if you'll see them as frequently as you will on PS3.

Many doctors and those not caught up in the hype of misleading information on this subject have stated the human eye can only visually intake 30 frames per second, rendering the whole hype of forcing 1080p in games pointless.  The point of this article is 720p is a neutral zone for game developers right now if they want the least bit of overall quality downgrading.  By raising it to 1080p you risk lots of other graphical problems arising just over the trade off of making a car or game character itself look better against the overall degraded quality game.  1080p is hype, 60fps is hype... all hype for those with disposable income to get suckered into because in their mindset more or a higher count must mean better, in the case of games right now it is not.  Any company forcing this groundless 1080p spec to unknowledgable brand loyalists are only instilling inaccurate fuel for blind fanboys to use against their competition.  Like the guy said above earlier, there is a sucker born every minute.

For me being a tekkie I've bee missing a lot of key pieces of information out of the PS3 / Xbox 360 1080p "debate".  From what I can gather all 360 games are rendered internally on the 360 in 720p.  Apparently developers can render in 1080i if they so choose, but for the most part they're at 720.  The 360 then scales the 720p image to whatever the user wants.

There has been speculation that the 360 when outputing 1080i is actually scaling DOWN the 720p image to a 540p image.  The speculation is based upon the resolutions that the VGA adapter allows you to output.  The argument is that if the video card translated 720p to 1080i then there should be some sort of 1080p (even if it isn't 60Hz) available for output via VGA.

So when I heard Peter Moore announce that the 360 was going to be able to do native 1080p, this was good news.  Now, after reading this article, I am a little confused.  The 1080p output won't be doing anything different?  If so, why doesn't the VGA output allow for 1080p as it stands right now?

There is certainly a trade off between 1080p and 720p in terms of graphical fidelity.  You have only so much power you can use.  But what many tekkies like myself have been happy about, is that from the start Sony has been very forthcoming with the information (and really the only part of the console that has had clarity) that the PS3 renders internally at 1080p and doesn't do 540p tricks, or upscales 720p, or whatever (although if a developer renders its games at 720p the PS3 will upconvert to 1080p).

I think that this is the area that this is the point many people are still trying to get clarification on.

TCampbell66, I don't know if I would go so far as to say 1080p and 60 fps is "hype".  If you can get 1920x1080 @ 60Hz to have the same graphical fidelity as 1280x720 @ 60Hz then that's not hype.  The point made, which I agree with, is that to get the increase in pixels you have to take away from something else since you only have a fixed amount of power available to use.

As far as why 60Hz is better than 30Hz, it is more based upon perception.  Life moves at a rate much, much grater than 60Hz.  That's why movement in life seems, well... lifelike; even though our brain can only really process the visual signal from our eyes at 30Hz.  The same thing happens for computer systems and TV's.  The system internally calculates a faster than 30Hz motion in order to give the system a more fluid motion.  You don't actually see the missing frames, but it looks less jerky and more fluid.

Similarly 1080i is not the same as 1080p all other things being equal.  In a 1080i signal you can get tear effects when you move the camera too quickly (one part of the image is looking at the new camera position, and the other part of the image is looking at the old camera position).  A 1080p image doesn't get tear effects.

the ps3 fanboys are going bonkers lolers

"Many doctors and those not caught up in the hype of misleading information on this subject have stated the human eye can only visually intake 30 frames per second, rendering the whole hype of forcing 1080p in games pointless."

I'm not sure what resolution has to do with frames per second, but that's nonsense. The human eye can, depending on conditions, differentiate between framerates well beyond 30fps.

The point you seem to miss in the rest of your post is that not every game is using all the power of the system, and thus can afford to go to 1080p without compromise. We're seeing that in games like Virtua Tennis 3 and Ridge Racer 7, which are 1080p/60 and look better than their 720p equivalents on 360. Where's the sacrifice there, hmm? There is none, because these games fall so comfortably under the systems capability than 1080p is not a problem. If it were a problem, I'm sure the developers would not use the resolution, and would stick to 720p - IT IS AN OPTION. This might be worth debating if Sony was forcing developers to use 1080p, but they're not. This is as pointless as debating the merits of any other optional choice a developer could make in the development of a game - for example, trading off CPU power for one area versus another in a game. The only reason Ozymandias and MS keep trying to cast a negative pall over this particular one is because they're lagging their competition here.

Don't you see? They're trying to stir 'technical debate' purely to serve a marketing agenda, and they're using us as pawns in that. It's crazy.

eawil2000 - Being a game developer myself my experienced perception is that everything you stated were contradictory oxy morons in your explanation.  Which is surprising to see from a "trekkie", but then that line of logic would render you enjoying those god aweful special editions they are making with the original Star Trek series right now.  lol  No one specific resolution over the other causes tearing unless the developer allows it as a part of the resolution trade off - it's hype and your speech reveals you've bought into it.  :)

Olrac - You mostly stated the same thing I did but in a different way.  I agree this is all a marketing spin to the gullible.  I mean some of them are posting here.

I have 2 lcd - 720p displays (native) and a projector that i run at 720p and sometimes 1080i.

On my LCD's which are all 32" - i would never want to run 1080p if the focus of the game was to show more detail because of viewing distance and comfort. It wouldn't be pleasing to the eye.  Its not like computers where your sitting 3 feet away at most, i'm at least 8 feet away from my tv's and i'm even further from my projector! I like fluid colors, smooth textures and smooth graphics - not necessarily super fine resolution of immediate images that would look more detailed.  I think working on drawing distance, pop in, tearing is more important than trying to push the detail of a game at a higher resolution as the whole point of 1080i/1080p is moot since to most people is 1920x1080 vs 1280x720  no If ands or P's.

On my projector with a 105" screen i can afford the resolution because i'm blowing it up and sitting further back.. so its no value to mee adn if i wanted pixel perfect resolution on an 105" screen we are talking resolutions MUCH higher than 1080p!

so yeah, if your PS3 or Xbox is connected to a computer monitor then 1080p may make a difference if your looking for the detail and resolution afforded, otherwise if your console is its home in front of your tv, what difference will this actually make?  I'm not looking for that level of detail when i'm sitting in my couch.

Resolution matters - but used in the right way.  HD/720 looks sharp because its the perfect mix of "resolution" and "clarity" that 1080p COULD do - but would the resolution actually lead to better games or just eye strain of trying to appear better for something that isn't designed for 2-3 foot viewing distance?

believe me, i like my WXGA resolution on my laptop (and larger) but for many people its too small even on a 21.5 inch matched monitor.

Ok, so 720p is better than 1080p...

But, following your logic, wouldn't you have to conclude that 480p is even better than 720p, because you can show more detail and run more complex pixel shaders, and 640x480 with 4x AA will generally look better than 1280x720 with no anti-aliasing (there are more total samples).

Am I right?

720p@60fps provides more video data than 1080i@60fps, and even more than 1080p@30fps. However any computer gamer will tell you higher resolutions give a better (sharper) image. Now, this notion that 1080p reduces graphically fidelity... well thats only true if you dont have the horsepower to properly render at 1080p. With a good graphics subsystem you can do FSAA@1080p no prob, and anything else you can do at 720p. I think what were being told here, in a roundabout way, is that the ATI card in our 360s doesn't have the power. Well, ok, whatever... but dont tell us you HAVE to give up fidelity at 1080p. You may HAVE to with the 360, but not with a powerful enough system. Not that the PS3 will be any more powerful, an nvidia 7800 part (PS3 card of choice) is no more powerful than the 360s ATI chip (maybe even less so, since its sans unified shaders). And now I'll throw it out there: Doesn't the ati chip have 10mb of superfast edram to offload the work of AA? And it can't muster AA@1080p? wtf?

There is no doubt that 1080p is the holy grail of high definition, which is exactly why Sony has pursued that benchmark with such enthusiasm. But exactly how hard is 1080p to render for video game consoles? Here are some...

To clarify, the game developer chooses the size of the buffer be it 720 or 1080 - IT DOES NOT deal with interlacing.

Then, the display chip in the Xbox 360 takes this image and converts it to whatever resolution and interlacing you have picked in the dashboard.

So all in all 720P>1080P for Gaming better performance, Effects, some what better Visuals at 720P. I think most PC gamers already knew this! But thoes fanboys got to lern the hardway thats life for ya.

TCampbell66, being an aerospace engineer by trade I am not a "trekkie", I'm a tekkie (what I originally put down).  ;-)

I don't see how my post is an "oxy moron", your original post was based on two foundations: 1) 1080p doesn't look better due to system power constraints, and 2) a 60 Hz signal doesn't look any different than a 30Hz signal.

I agree with point #1.. up to a point.  *IF* the developer is using all the system resources to its full potential at 720p, then, yes 1080p will look worse because you have to get rid of effects to get the higher resolution.  But, as I was pointing out, *IF* you have the same fidelity of graphics availble at 1080p as you do at 720p then the 1080p will look better.

I disagree with your second argument.  Frame-rate matters; as a developer I'm surprised you don't agree.  A 30 fps signal stutters a lot more than a 60 fps signal.  The fact that you're actually transmitting 60 fps is all the better.

I also take to task your implied statement that at 30 Hz 1080p is fine.  30Hz at 1080p is *essentially* 1080i.  The interlacing causes tear effects which are quite noticable whe playing a fast paced game, or watching a fast paced movie.

Those were the bases of my argument.  I personally fail to see how those are oxymorons.

To play devil's advocate: if it is true that 720p>1080p due to system power, then 480p>720p....  That's Nintendo's argument.

"I thought the article addressed this. It's called field rendering and it causes problems, like increased flicker. It also requires a rock solid 60 fps, which is difficult on modern games because of their complexity. Yes, games could do field rendering. Yes, it helps the performance problems of 1080 resolutions. But, since it makes games look worse (flicker really *sucks*) I really doubt it is a good idea."

Yes I saw this in the article.  I agree that flicker sucks.  It is always bad to have less pixels and 1080i can cut the pixel (render) count in half.  This is good for speed and bad for quality.  Whether or not the trade-off is worth is it simply going to depend on the application.  My point is that its unfair to say that 1080p rendering is 1.0x times as hard as 1080i.  It can be done with 1/2 the rendering as the expense of quality.

Taken from one of my HT sites. Plain and simple

"Is 720p vs 1080i worth being concerned about? Yes and no. If you're a consumer looking for a new TV, you can happily ignore the 720p vs 1080i debate because every TV which is described as HDTV or HDTV Ready is required to support both formats.

NOTE: You should be aware though that lots of TVs which support 1080i have fewer than 1080 lines and so scale the 1080 signal down. That's not a huge issue as even scaled down 1080i is far ahead of a regular NTSC signal. It is worth bearing in mind that more expensive HDTVs tend to have better scalers than cheaper ones, and this may be an issue.

However, for broadcasters it's a live issue. Should they broadcast 1080 lines of interlaced video or 720 lines of progressive scan? They could just broadcast two signals, one in each format, but that would use up a huge chunk of bandwidth and be hugely expensive for very little gain.

To answer the question, it's important to understand the difference between 720p vs 1080i. A 720p signal is made up of 720 horizontal lines. Each frame is displayed in its entirety on-screen for 1/30th of a second. This is know as progressive scan (hence the 'p')The quality is like watching 30 photographic images a second on TV. A 1080i signal comprises 1080 horizontal lines but all the lines are not displayed on-screen simultaneously. Instead, they are interlaced (hence the 'i'), ie every other lines is displayed for 1/60th of a second and then the alternate lines are displayed for 1/60th of a second. So, the frame rate is still 30 frames per second, but each frame is split into two fields, which your brain then puts together subconsciously.

Most of the time interlacing works fine, but for fast moving images, such as sports like baseball and hockey it can cause problems which manifest themselves as a 'stepping' effect on-screen. Progressive scan signals don't have this problem and so are better suited to sports.

ESPN puts it like this: 'Progressive scan technology produces better images for the fast moving orientation of sports television. Simply put, with 104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey, the line-by-line basis of progressive scan technology better captures the inherent fast action of sports. For ESPN, progressive scan technology makes perfect sense.'

Most of you are SOOOO off...

Rendering 1920x1080p = rendering 60 fps at 1920x1080 (at 1 frame per TV scan Hz)

Rendering 1920x1080i = rendering 30 fps at 1920x1080 (with the 1 frame split in odd lines displayed each 2 Hz, and the even lines displayed each other 2 Hz).

So, YES 1080i is 50% easier on the GPU than 1080p, IF THE GAME RENDERS 60 FPS in 1080p!

So, what does that mean?  Displaying 1080p isn't any harder than displaying 1080i on the graphics processor until you want more than 30 fps (which wouldn't do anything good in 1080i anyways).

So stop the bullshit everyone and just get it!! I'm sick and tired of reading and hearing crap about this.

oh I forgot to say that ALL TVs are based on 60Hz scan, be it interlaced or progressive, which is why interlaced needs two Hz for 1 frame, while progressive can have 1 frame per Hz.

Don't even stard with PAL *** and 24p projectors.

Oh, and to the Transfix stupid a*s just up of me,

- 720p can be 720p at 30 FPS, and 720p at 60 FPS.

- 1080i and 1080p at 30 fps are BOTH the same.  In fact, 1080i can result in BETTER motion because the content can be made so 60 fps are used to create the 60 fields.  Yes you get stepping, but you have 30 more fps than in 1080p30.  

In videogames they never do this.  They split 1 frame into odd and even lines scans and then use 2 Hz to display the 1 frame.  This results in a cap of 30 fps for 1080i games.

Any digital display device (LCD, DLP, any PANEL), with sufficient pixels (ie 1920x1080, even if it doesn't accept 1080p), will display the 30 fps of 1080i as 30 real frames, without interlacing.  Which completely eliminates the stepping problem.  

So buyer beware : DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE SMARTASSES!  If your display HAS 1920x1080 PIXELS and accepts either 1080i or 1080p, it still DOES 1080p (unless it's a scan-based display like a CRT).

Good Sir, could you please DELETE all PS3 fan-boy's posts in order to keep this place clean?

Thank you.

Ok guys, just wondering about this whole 720 vs. 1080i/p stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong but is HD resolutions like DVD/movie aspect ratios 720 equals  1:85:1 and would it be safe to say that 1080 is like 2:35:1??? Just wondering. And why if the 360 is native 720 can't I get just a generic widescreen on my regular tv. DVD's display in wide screen on it so why not games??? The Lost Planet displays in widescreen, but the rest of the games don't. Just wondering...

who cares as long as developers continue to make great games!!!

Can you have flicker on LCD or Plasma displays though, given that they aren't raster devices?

If you assume a constant level of hardware, any improvement in resolution = more pixels = less power available to process them--and this is as true for SVGA vs. XGA as it is for 1080 vs. 720. Try any game on a computer with a marginal graphics card, and you will find a point where higher resolution = worse performance.

The point however is that computing power increases on a fairly regular basis, and as it does, it allows you to sacrifice performance for improved resolution because you now have enough hardware to do both.

Were this not so, we'd all still be playing games at 640x480.

"Jesus Christ! Are you people morons? No offense. 720p is better than 1080p."

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing! You cannot be serious. Is this really Major Nelson, or someone pretending to be him?

Wow, if that was Major Nelson I must say I'm never going back to his site again.  And possibly hacking my 360... way to treat your user base a**.

Heh heh Sony fanboys are funny :D

Thanks for that, I found it really interesting. I never realized the 'p' boys were still only rendering 30fps.

Being out of diapers and having a feel for the historical antics of companies like Sony and IBM, the hype train is really annoying. It's time for them to put up or shut up.

Although I'll also chip in with a "720p FTW" if it means better detail / effects. My eyesights so bad I couldn't tell the difference anyway ;)

This is why im a pc gamer. Ive had 1920x1280 resolution for years, and with none of this ZOMGZOMGZOMG PIPIPIPIPIPIPI shenanigans goin on.

Nice...1080P...re-mystified. That didn't take long.

For all you guys with the "480p>720p>1080p for gaming" comments:

I think you have missed the point.  The point is that currently at least with the consoles 720p is the sweet spot.  Meaning you get a higher resolution which looks better than 480p but also you have the ability to throw in all the effects that you have to scale back with 1080p.

Really this is all nit picking.  Gears of War looks incredible at 720p so thats really all that matters practically.  You can continue to argue about it but at this stage in the game its a waste of time.  The logic makes sense to me as I think it would to any rational person.  Also last I checked great graphics wasnt the end all be all of video games.  ;)

Alright ladies!!! Would someone care to answer MY questions and quit bitching around like little school girls!!! My question was this:

Ok guys, just wondering about this whole 720 vs. 1080i/p stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong but is HD resolutions like DVD/movie aspect ratios 720 equals  1:85:1 and would it be safe to say that 1080 is like 2:35:1??? Just wondering. And why if the 360 is native 720 can't I get just a generic widescreen on my regular tv. DVD's display in wide screen on it so why not games??? The Lost Planet displays in widescreen, but the rest of the games don't. Just wondering...

after reading the posts my questions are:

    why on my t.v in 1080i everything looks great (except the little tearing or stepping?) but on 720p which supposedly is more fluid looks horrible? It doesn't even compare to 1080i on my t.v.

   So I'm wondering because I am an idiot! Does this really matter if developers are not even using the hardware to full capacity? Aren't we a few years early for gaming to take advantage of high definition anyways?

I'm so confused. I was just hoping to find out which resolution is perfect for gaming. My brain is shutting down now. Anyone have any criminal justice questions?

One thing I find baffling about the 180i/p vs 720p debate is no one brings up that you mya not actually see the difference.  What I mean is mentally you will know you are displaying a higher resolution and therefore your mind may be tricking you into thinking it looks better.

To understand what I mean you will need a computer with a high res monitor.  And a computer game.  This can be tricky because sometimes you will see a "jaggy" and think it is pixelation when it is actually in the resolution of textures or something like that.  I find that at 1280x1024 I can just barely pick out pixels and that is with my eye as close as possible to the screen(19").  At 1600x1200 I can't pick them out but does that matter?

I said the only way I can see a pixel is getting my eye within 3.5" of the screen, when are you ever that close to a tv?

So I submit to everyone here 720p is = to 1080p because at normal viewing distances with standard television sizes your eye does not have the resolution to pick out individual pixels.  And since at 720p you can put in better effects 720p is superior.

1080p is overatted for small screen sizes.

The best TVs for picture quality... which I believe are the Pioneer Plasmas or the Panasonic Industrials max out at 1366x768.

A 1080p Westinghouse... or even a 1080p SXRD (which I guess is much more debatable) can't hold a lick to the smoothness and direct-view nature of a premium plasma screen.

Major Nelson: "Jesus Christ! Are you people morons? No offense. 720p is better than 1080p."

No its not - 720 is SOMMETIMES better than 1080 because when using 1080 the games engines are not advanced/fast enough and therefore have to cut out some of the clever stuff that makes the game look good. If the game/Xbox was able to render 1080 within the deadline and was advanced enough that the clever stuff didnt need disabling then 1080p is DOUBLE the quality of 720p (over 50% (1 million) additional pixels of detail).

John, there are quite a few people over at the AVS forum that would disagree with your statements. ;)

NIno_fs, the resolution benefit depends GREATLY upon the size of the TV.  

Malleus NX01, I agree with your statements.  Gameplay is king, 720p gives a good mix of resolution and graphical fideltiy for this generation.  Many of us, however, just want the most for our system. :)  That's really what it comes down to.  We're just trying to figure out how to get everything to work the best we possibly can.

Isaiah,

720x and 1080x output at the same native ratio on all televisions that support them. 720x is at 1280x720 and 1080x is 1920x1080. If you divide both the first numbers by the second numbers you get 1.7777 repeating, which means they have the same ratio. The only difference is the size of the image, which on a large television makes it look better. (No point to a 1080p 17" wide television unless it sits less than a yard away from you). I don't know why your 360 is limited to non-widescreen, the only thing I can say is double-check your system area in the dashboard and see if you have extra options under display.

Major Nelson said: "Have you read any of the posts? I suggest reading them again. It clearly tells you why 720p is an overall better resolution. I talk to many developers and they say the same thing too. Are you a developer? No. Get over it please. 720p is better if you like it or not. Good thing people like you don't post comments on my site. Again, don't take it personally. I just want everyone to get that in their small brains that 720p is BETTER than 1080p. Please check out a few of my previous blogs if you need even further explanation (which someone like you needs)."

Actually I do post on your website and I am a PC software developer, and my field of work is with Video codecs and scaling/interlacing methods - so I think I know what I am talking about. 720 is BETTER visually than 1080 when the game cannot run its advanced engine algorithms when in 1080 because they take too much time.

Major Nelson said: "I just want everyone to get that in their small brains that 720p is BETTER than 1080p. Please check out a few of my previous blogs if you need even further explanation (which someone like you needs)."

All repect for you has been lost, how dare you implicate everybody as stupid with small brains; how dare you assume that I dont have a clue what I am talking about.

Oh and please let Bruce know that some of us found the article illuminating. I like seeing things like this because I want to understand the basic facts that the marketing guys would have me gloss over when I read news about console systems.

And why do you assume this is actually Major Nelson? I could type in Bill Gates and then type www.microsoft.com, and that's how it would show up.

If its NOT Major Nelson (I hope it isnt) then I do apologise.

To clarify, I am saying that for the majority of console games that dont have the next-next gen engines; 720 is visually better than 1080.

In all other aspects of the video world 1080 is superior to 720 (even though your eyes are not able to pick up much difference between 720 and 1080). Generally 1080 is only really needed for large screens (60"+).

Interlacing and progressive scan is a whole other kettle of fish.

Your OWN DAMN PRODUCT supports 1080p. If it's such a useless format why support it. If your hardware can't support it while looking good why make the option.

1080i take 1/2 the RENDERING time but needs the same size FRAMEBUFFER. Just because you have that may pixels to show doesn't mean you RENDER all of them all of the time. Just render every other pixel with an off set then write it to the frame buffer. Viola you spent 1/2 the time rendering.

Maybe, just maybe the Sony hardware cost more because they have special processing units that allow for 2x or 4x AA on 1080p?

OR is 480p the way to go? Maybe Wii should stop caring about resolution?

***Sigh*** said: "1080i take 1/2 the RENDERING time but needs the same size FRAMEBUFFER. Just because you have that may pixels to show doesn't mean you RENDER all of them all of the time. Just render every other pixel with an off set then write it to the frame buffer. Viola you spent 1/2 the time rendering."

As far as I know, the game has to render 1920x1080 on each pass, the Xbox display chip then does the interlacing which throws away 1/2 the pixels.

Could be wrong, but that would explain why what you said cant happen.

Isaiah:

"Ok guys, just wondering about this whole 720 vs. 1080i/p stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong but is HD resolutions like DVD/movie aspect ratios 720 equals  1:85:1 and would it be safe to say that 1080 is like 2:35:1??? Just wondering. And why if the 360 is native 720 can't I get just a generic widescreen on my regular tv. DVD's display in wide screen on it so why not games??? The Lost Planet displays in widescreen, but the rest of the games don't. Just wondering..."

Aspect ratio has nothing to do with screen ratio.  The ratio is just a description of how wide a screen is compared to it's height (with height always represented as 1).  1.85:1 means the screen is 1.85 times as wide as it is high.

2.35:1 is wider and more commonly used for action movies.  These are both ratios for film and are not used for videogames.

Analogue standard definition is in 4:3 (1.33:1) ratio and high definition resolutions (both 720p and 1080p/i) are in 16:9 (1.78:1).  So if you are connecting your 360 to a standard TV it will only do 4:3 ratio.  Most of the games are designed to be played in 16:9, and these may have letterboxing (the black bars at top and bottom) when you play them on 4:3 TVs.

Once again, ratio and resolution are completely independent of each other.

720p is better than 1080p for videogames.  what?! am I crazy?  more pixels equals better right?

in theory that would be correct.  but in practical terms it is not.

okay, who here thinks they are going to be playing games on their PS3 or 360 in 1080p resolution and 60fps?

guess what, you're wrong.

the ATSC (the group that defines digital television transmission systems) only supports 1080p at 24, 25 and 30 frames per second.  That's right, no 60.  That means there are no HDTVs that will support higher 1080p frame rates than 30.  that's why everyone is saying that 1080i (which is locked at 60 interlaced fields per second) is the same as 1080p.  For all practical purposes, it is.

True monitors can go much higher than this, for frame rate and for resolution, but we're talking about consoles, which are designed for TVs and HDTVs.  So, let's focus on that.

HDTVs (in general) support the following resolutions:

720p at 24, 30 and 60fps

1080i at 30fps (60 interlaced fields)

1080p at 24 and 30fps

Now, it comes down to the type of game you are playing.  If you are going to play Final Fantasy, a game which will not have lots of action and movement, a higher resolution with lower frame rate might be ideal.  But go play Call of Duty 2 on Xbox 360 which runs at a silky smooth 720p60, and then tell me that you would rather have a slower frame rate.

IT'S ALWAYS A TRADE OFF!

idiot:

"why on my t.v in 1080i everything looks great (except the little tearing or stepping?) but on 720p which supposedly is more fluid looks horrible? It doesn't even compare to 1080i on my t.v."

I'm just guessing here, but your TV is probably 1080i native.  HDTVs all have a 'native' resolution that they convert all other resolutions to before displaying them (although most 1080i TVs can supposedly do 480p natively)

for example, I have a 720p TV.  that means it ALWAYS displays 720p, no matter what resolution you put into it.  If you input a 1080i signal, it has to deinterlace and then re-scale it from 1920x1080 to 1280x720.  My set does a pretty good job of scaling (although I notice a delay for 480i videogames) but a set which is 1080i natively is going to look kind of ugly upscaling 720p, because it has to blow the picture up and add extra pixels to fit the resolution.

and 720p is only smoother than 1080i if you're talking about 720p60 and 1080i30.  most TV shows and movies are shot at 24 progressive frames per second, so this is all kind of moot for those things.  Sports prefer higher temporal resolution, so 60fps is ideal.  That's why ESPN prefers 720p.  They COULD shoot 1080i with 60 interlaced fields every second (like old-school NTSC analogue systems), but this would look blurrier than 720p when displayed because you're only refreshing half the picture at a time.

to eawil2000:

I admit that on a big screen you could see the pixels but the bigger the screen the farther you sit from it, in general.

So yes if I set a 30" screen to 720p and then sat as close to it as I am to my computer screen I would see pixelation but who sits that close?

my average tv viewing distance is 6 feet I am not sure how big the pixels would have to be to be seen but at that distance they would need to be rather large.

Another thing that should be considered when deciding to boost resolution or not is the ratio of what you gain to what you lose.  There are 2.25 times as many pixels in 1080p as in 720p but you only get pixels which are 33% smaller.  That added resolution is a big burden for a relatively small gain.

This is so sad... it makes me sad to be a gamer when "this" is what they are acting like.

You want a PS3? Buy one.  You want an Xbox360? Buy one.

Either way you'll probably enjoy it.  Why can't that be enough.  Why does this "hey lets all s**t on the system I don't want" mentality get worst and worst with each generation??

Pathetic.  I would think the Xbox fanboys (me included) would be too busy playing their system to care what others think... and I would think the PS3 fanboys could spend their time researching the system and discussing it with other fans instead of feeding flame wars.

Now that's what I'm talking about, I could care less what other people think of the 360.. I love the hell out of it. But I really have to stop reading this system wars crap or my head is going to explode from the rampant stupidity.

*goes to play Splinter Cell D.A.*

Woot! I ranked 19th on one of the co-op stages but can't shave another 30 seconds off my time to get first no matter how hard I try! Grrrrrr.

SquirrelPhister - those standards are changing, including the new HDMI v1.3 chips which support 1080@60.

Bottom line is that for games 720p will almost always be the best resolution, for movies 1080p is the holy grail. As for the comment that MOST component connections won't accept 1080p, none will. Component doesn't have the bandwidth. But it's less a technical issues than an issue regarding how the human eye works. For computer generated graphics, 720p with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering will always be better than 1080p without. This is evidenced by the fact that very few people can tell the difference between a 720p and a 1080i picture. Once consoles become so powerful that they can apply 4xAA and 4xAF and STILL run at 60fps, then we might actually have a debate on our hands.

My last sentence should have read "Once consoles become so powerful that they can apply 4xAA and 4xAF and STILL run at 1080p/60, then we might actually have a debate on our hands." Hey, the memory goes at my time of life. Live with it, I have to. :)

BTW: In case anyone's still stuck in the mode of "1080p is the holy grail" mode... uhhh... ya might wanna keep in mind that 1080p isn't the be-all, end-all of HD. Despite being held up as one by the next-gen DVD people of the moment (Microsoft AND Sony included).

Displays, devices, and software for definitions blowing 1080p out of the water are coming down the pipe at a pretty decent pace. Are they really going to hit the consumer market anytime soon? Er, considering about 90% of the television market still own SDTVs, HDTV hasn't really hit the consumer market in a big way either. Relatively speaking.

1080p is a big number now... but not a particularly big number in the long run, and not a particularly potent number for game developers regardless.

Plus, if you missed it, 360 can upscale to 1080p for basically free (when not native signals) while a lot of major PS3 titles promised in 1080p (Resistance) turn out to be shooting for lower end resolutions (Resistance ships at 720p), and PS3 will (more than likely) also be doing more upscaling and less native rendering. The be-all end-all is that both systems have basically the exact same capability when it comes to 1080p, that this capability only matters to a tiny sliver ofthe market, and that everyone does need to take an STFU pill and get back to gaming.

And to another post- someone mentioned how 360 games are still at 720p a year after launch... well, look at all the 720p titles on PS3. Same thing. Again.

Gspawn

1080p was not invented by Sony or MS. It's a recommendation made by  ITR-U and poted by the SMPTE(society of motion piture technical engineers)

It took many years to develop and  1080p is the end all of HDTV for North America. The standard does have a slighty higher resolution in the recommendation for PAL based aspect ratios.

It alows for monitor makers to make cross compatable monitors. No will release a new standard for many years. It takes to much work to get everyone to agree. There are also compelling technical limitations to being limited to 1080p for the content  creatation side.

30fps is more than sufficent for smooth motion. Animated cartoons are at 12-15 fps. Only on computers where frame rate is variable is the 60 FPS number necessary. It lets you drop a large number of frames while keeping game play smooth.

OZY- Sorry for being so hard in my first post. In all honesty you didn't write the quoted text. It's actually quite balanced since the Xbox Team took the time to include 1080p. Not many people would point out flaws in their product. Though having written rendering engines it's not so hard.

I'd be realy curious as to how many people actually have 1080p capable TV's, or are likely to, over the next 2-3 years.  This is a debate that has little relevence in the real world/current mass market.  You will notice the xbox 360 and PS3 both support 480i/p.  While it's hardly a selling point, it's a fact that a lot of people will be connecting their units to TV's that can only handle these resolutions.

And there is so much more to good graphics than just the resolution, I almost can't believe how much people are fixating on it.  I guess maybe because it's easy to quanitify something like a pixel count.

The graphics gurus of the past always understood colour was more important than res. for creating great images.  If you look at the latest and greatest Plasmas, they are still trying to push the theoretical colour count up (into the billions now) along with contrast ratios, dynmaic range etc.

About games, all things being equal, the graphics engine is where it's really at.  Just look at what Lorne Lanning did with Strangers Wrath on the original xbox.

I have to say though, stating that 1080p is meaningless (or something to that effect) is not only a cunning pro-xbox marketing ploy, it's just plain wrong.  The PS3 is not just a gaming machine.  It's a also blu-ray movie player.  Seems pretty smart to me that Blu-Ray and Hi Def output have been mated into a single unit (the PS3).  They are synergistic technologies, and of course games will benefit from having these features working together towards the common goal of creating a great gaming experience.

Lets see some 360 games that actually run at 60fps standard-def before worrying about upping the resolution!

Not even Doom runs at 60fps on the XBox 360... :-(

My TV has 1366 x 768 pixels, so what resolution is it natively?  720p or 1080i?  Thanks!

I think most people are missing the point a bit.  1080p is a good thing for the industry as a whole.  The image quality will be far far better than current SDTV's, and is still a good step up on 720p.  For today, its all thats needed.

Now the best part - a single standard... none of this Pal50, Pal60, 4:3, 16:9, NTSC-(j, etc).  What we will have is 16:9, 1920*1080 @ 60 fps.  Digital connects (which carry 7.1 audio too) in the form of HDMi, so we can at last kiss goodbye to overscan (and safe screen areas that developers will be glad to get rid of).

From a games point of view, no more "my tekken on pal50 plays completely different to the ntsc one".  No more stupid safe screens or screen adjusts (thats my biggest thumbs up when I think about my LCD monitor, no screen adjusts with DVI).  Fingers crossed from a film point of view we get rid of 24, 29.97, 50, 60 fps and just get a standard of 60 sorted in the above res.  Then life will be sweet.

Sony in my book should get a medal for pushing for blueray as standard, an HDMi connect, and 1080p.  MS, dvd drive, analog connect via a none standard xbox only port and 720p.  Garbage.  360 is half assed in every respect.

After reading about which is better 720p, 1080i or 1080p, does anyone know how Microsoft plans on getting a 1080p signal to the HDMI port on tv's that support it because they do not accept 1080p through component!! The 360 hooks up component right???

Andrew said: "My TV has 1366 x 768 pixels, so what resolution is it natively?  720p or 1080i?  Thanks!"

Your TVs native resolution is simply 1366x768 which has no short name like 720p has (1280x720). A 768 resolution screen is simlar to 720.

John: Wow. I mean...wow. That's got to be the most uninformed post of the day.

"The best TVs for picture quality... which I believe are the Pioneer Plasmas or the Panasonic Industrials max out at 1366x768."

So..you expect us to believe that a 720p native screen looks *better* displaying a 1080p signal than a screen with a 1080p (1920x1080) display? Are you retarded? The 1080p screen will give you a 1 to 1 pixel mapping, i.e. you get to see all your image data. The 720p screen will effectively drop half those pixels during the scaling process.

Comments like your make baby Jesus cry.

Oh and to Andrew and Sulphuric Acid, re: 1366 is what natively...it's 720p. The reason it's a slightly higher resolution vertically and horizontally is to counteract overscan, which broadcasters refuse to give up, even in the digital era we live in now. So you can proudly tell your friends you have a 720p set.

Tainted Taint, don't cry!  While your sentiment seems logical on the face of it, you are still falling for the paradigm that it's all about resolution.  This is totally wrong.

A TV that has 1 to 1 pixel mapping for 1080p (for arguments sake) does not automatically mean it will have a better picture than a TV that needs to down-scale the image.  Expensive HD plasmas in the 42 inch range are a classic example.  Plasmas, unlike LCD's, are much more limited in terms of how small you can make the pixels.  The main reason for this is that a pixel in a plasma display actually emits light (it's a small light-bulb filled with gas) whereas a LCD pixel simply blocks light.  This is why Plasmas produce a much better black.  They can literally turn off, whereas the LCD pixel must simply block the back-light to the best of its ability.

The point is, unless there is a significant advance in plasma technology, you will not see a 42 inch plasma that can support 1080p natively.

So for arguments sake, does this mean a 42 inch LCD that has native 1080p support will produce a better picture than a Hi Def 42 inch plasma that must down-scale?  Absolutely not.  Viewing angle; contrast ratio; dynamic range, color reproduction, motion blur are just some of the other factors regarding picture quality that have nothing to do with resolution.

ps. 42 inch plasmas top out at 1024*768 which means their aspect ratio is 4:3, not 16:9.  They achieve the wide-screen effect by making the pixels elliptical rather than spherical.

Quality plasmas (like top end Panasonics/Pioneers) have superior scalers (compared to cheaper brands) so that while the 1-to-1 pixel mapping may not be possible, they do a very good job of retaining the correct proportions.  If you are going to be using your TV primarily as a computer-screen, then 1-to1 pixel mapping will become more important because you are likely to be reading a lot of text.  If you are using the screen for home theatre and console games, then do yourself a big favor and actually view the end-result before making a decision.  1-to-1 pixel mapping may be great but sitting in a dark room with a glowing grey screen that is supposed to be pitch black totally sucks (IMHO).

Can't we all agree that 720p and 1080p look great in their respective domains (and no one likes interlace flicker)? I just wish all games would run at a locked 60fps. Yes, the human eye can only detect less than 30fps, which is great for 2D games. But, 60fps are needed for 3D games due to parallax effects. In a first-person shooter at 30fps, rotation of 90 degrees won't cause problems with an enemy only two feet away, but the same rotation of 90 degrees will have drastic effects on an enemy 50 feet away. I would want a game 720p@60fps over 1080i anyday.

GameRfun

You are incorrect to state that 3d games need a faster frame rate than 2d.

Parallax error had nothing to do with the need for more frame rate unless you are running in stereo display mode.

Parallax error is also inversely proportional to the distance of the viewed object. In other words, the error get smaller the farther the viewer is from the object.

The real problem in moving rapidly in a 3d envirnment is that computers just aren't powerful enough to render everything and keep game interaction up at an aceptable rate. Hence in computational expensive scenes such as explostions with lots of enemy AI and many sounds you drop frames.

That why the gears or war demo can look so good. They are using in game graphic engines with out having to  poll the hardware for input. You can notice an immediate change in graphics quality when they shift to the playable scenes. There IS more to it than that there are many other tricks make make the cutscenes look good.

In essence you want a system that never gets below 30fps.  By having 60fps you hope that you loose only 1/2 of your maximum frame rate thus ensuring a smooth gameplay experience.

It's beginning to feel like I need my own blog :)

Does anyone know how Xbox 360 is going to push 1080p when we get our software update that is, since HDTV's only support 1080p with the HDMI port's not Component.

X360 hooks up Component only. Has anyone even thought about this, If you have any info please respond.

I only hope that one day I have as much free time (or, from the looks of it, free brain-power) to make such an enlightening comment as that made by Fukityfuckfuckfuck. Good going. And I thought the human race had actually advanced from neanderthal days. If you actually bothered to read this thread, you'd realise that there are a lot of knowledgeable people out there, and their comments are of great interest. Yours, however, isn't.....douche.

Chris:

The fact that the Xbox360 doesn't have hdmi doesn't mean that it can't output full 1080p.

1080p30 is the highest supported frame rate in  SMPTE274M, the specification that  defines 1080p hd.

The bandwidth used for that is 74~ Mhz.  I believe that this is still with in the range of standard componnt video cables.

As long as the Xbox outputs the video properly than what you have is a limitation of the TV's.

I'd imagine you would actually need the fancier cables to make this work since you would be operating near the peak capacity of the wires.

Galaga looks great on all my tv's... at every resolution. Im set...

I got an email last night from Bruce Dawson. Some of you may remember Bruce as the co-author of the console