Comments on: SCALING ISSUES ON THE PS3 /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/ We're not PlayStation but we sometimes get to speak to them Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:47:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Dave /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-1197 Dave Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:05:24 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-1197 Geesh people.... 960 x 540 is a 1/4 of 1920 x 1080, not half. Geesh people….
960 x 540 is a 1/4 of 1920 x 1080, not half.

]]> By: Ray Brown /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-867 Ray Brown Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:47:58 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-867 Ok folks, time for a quick and dirty explanation of what the p's and i's in HDTV modes mean. Basically, for an i mode, you cut the actual resolution in half. 1080i is a 960 x 540 (518400) pixel image sent each refresh, with each refresh drawing half the screen (540 lines per frame = less than 720). 1080p is a 1920 x 1080 (2073600) pixel image sent each refresh. So, 720p at 1280 x 720 (921600) pixels is almost double 1080i's pixel count... All that said, it is pretty crappy that the $600 monster machine didn't ship with universal HDTV support, but I don't care as I don't have an HDTV set yet... or a PS3, since I'm waiting 'till they're on the shelves. Ok folks, time for a quick and dirty explanation of what the p’s and i’s in HDTV modes mean.
Basically, for an i mode, you cut the actual resolution in half. 1080i is a 960 x 540 (518400) pixel image sent each refresh, with each refresh drawing half the screen (540 lines per frame = less than 720).
1080p is a 1920 x 1080 (2073600) pixel image sent each refresh.
So, 720p at 1280 x 720 (921600) pixels is almost double 1080i’s pixel count…
All that said, it is pretty crappy that the $600 monster machine didn’t ship with universal HDTV support, but I don’t care as I don’t have an HDTV set yet… or a PS3, since I’m waiting ’till they’re on the shelves.

]]> By: SuicideNinja /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-832 SuicideNinja Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:03:09 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-832 "A 720p progressive signal at the same time has a higher resolution than 1080i." No no no. They are leaning on a technicality. Nobody cares about bandwidth, it's about the resulting picture. If the "pieced together" picture has 1080 vertical lines, then it is irrefutably a higher resolution than 720p (which only has 720 vertical lines). Just because the display method of those lines is different doen't change the actual resulting resolution. Or ignore the truth and continue to bow down to Sony and all their inanities. HDMI (aka DVI with Audio) doesn't make HD any "truer". You can use DVI and even component for 1080p as well. The problem is manufacturer's are in bed with the movie companies, so those signals are forcibly denied on some connections, even though there's no technical roadblock. “A 720p progressive signal at the same time has a higher resolution than 1080i.”

No no no. They are leaning on a technicality. Nobody cares about bandwidth, it’s about the resulting picture. If the “pieced together” picture has 1080 vertical lines, then it is irrefutably a higher resolution than 720p (which only has 720 vertical lines).

Just because the display method of those lines is different doen’t change the actual resulting resolution.

Or ignore the truth and continue to bow down to Sony and all their inanities.

HDMI (aka DVI with Audio) doesn’t make HD any “truer”. You can use DVI and even component for 1080p as well. The problem is manufacturer’s are in bed with the movie companies, so those signals are forcibly denied on some connections, even though there’s no technical roadblock.

]]> By: SolidSlug /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-804 SolidSlug Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:26:42 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-804 Do yourself a favor and read something: http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm I don't know how this applies to LCD and other fixed pixels HDTVs that do not scan. Do yourself a favor and read something:

http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm

I don’t know how this applies to LCD and other fixed pixels HDTVs that do not scan.

]]> By: Petri /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-798 Petri Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:29:12 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-798 "720p is a higher resolution than 1080i." Excuse me, what?! That's complete and utter bulls***. The fact that 1080i is interlaced has nothing to do with the fact that the resolution is still 1920x1080 - which is far greater than 1280x720. 1080i is de-interlaced in the display device and displayed as 1080p, and you get full 1920x1080 resolution. This has nothing to do with 720p looking smoother; I'm only taking issue with that idiotic statement. “720p is a higher resolution than 1080i.”

Excuse me, what?! That’s complete and utter bulls***. The fact that 1080i is interlaced has nothing to do with the fact that the resolution is still 1920×1080 - which is far greater than 1280×720. 1080i is de-interlaced in the display device and displayed as 1080p, and you get full 1920×1080 resolution. This has nothing to do with 720p looking smoother; I’m only taking issue with that idiotic statement.

]]> By: BLite /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-796 BLite Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:09:33 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-796 (The obvious conclusion, BTW, is that 1080i HAS to push more pixels than 720p does at its highest refresh rate). (The obvious conclusion, BTW, is that 1080i HAS to push more pixels than 720p does at its highest refresh rate).

]]> By: BLite /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-795 BLite Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:07:17 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-795 I think the math is lacking here. Assuming these standards - 1080 at 60I and 720 at 60P 1080x60i updates half of the fields at the same rate as 720x60p: Or, simplified: 1920x540 (for 1080i) = 1,036,800 1280x720 (for 720p) = 921,600 Whomever is posting otherwise seems to be quite confused about this. A good article that explains ALL the ATSC formats is available at: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/284986.html I'm really at a loss to understand where people are getting this stuff... "A 720p set generallly can recieve a 1280x720 frame ONCE EVERY SECOND??" and a "1080i set receives a frame of 960x540???" Where are these numbers coming from? "Actually things are more complicated you have to take framerates and progressive/interlaced modes into account. basically a signal with 1080i needs a lower bandwidth to as two images of 540 lines will be generated (interlaced). A 720p progressive signal at the same time has a higher resolution than 1080i. I no that this sounds confusing but those are the facts" Just doing some simple multiplication would demonstrate that what you're saying is NOT valid. Geez. This stuff isn't that confusing people. I think the math is lacking here.

Assuming these standards - 1080 at 60I and 720 at 60P

1080×60i updates half of the fields at the same rate as 720×60p:

Or, simplified:

1920×540 (for 1080i) = 1,036,800
1280×720 (for 720p) = 921,600

Whomever is posting otherwise seems to be quite confused about this. A good article that explains ALL the ATSC formats is available at: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/284986.html

I’m really at a loss to understand where people are getting this stuff… “A 720p set generallly can recieve a 1280×720 frame ONCE EVERY SECOND??” and a “1080i set receives a frame of 960×540???” Where are these numbers coming from?

“Actually things are more complicated you have to take framerates and progressive/interlaced modes into account. basically a signal with 1080i needs a lower bandwidth to as two images of 540 lines will be generated (interlaced). A 720p progressive signal at the same time has a higher resolution than 1080i. I no that this sounds confusing but those are the facts”

Just doing some simple multiplication would demonstrate that what you’re saying is NOT valid.

Geez. This stuff isn’t that confusing people.

]]> By: Soong /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-792 Soong Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:12:16 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-792 I think what's thrown people (just me then?) is that the list is in order of resolution QUALITY, not resolution. 1080i is displayed at a higher resolution but the quality isn't classed as good as 720p due to it being an interlaced output (540 lines vertically)... ? Anyway, I'm going to bed. I think what’s thrown people (just me then?) is that the list is in order of resolution QUALITY, not resolution. 1080i is displayed at a higher resolution but the quality isn’t classed as good as 720p due to it being an interlaced output (540 lines vertically)… ?

Anyway, I’m going to bed.

]]> By: deftangel /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-790 deftangel Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:30:39 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-790 *Sighs* Less of the FUD please. The 360 can do native 1080p and you don't need HDMI to do it, it just doesn't have any content rendered at the resolution yet. The 1080i issue doesn't effect many people, mainly those with early HDTV's, particulary CRT ones. As they probably queued up for 3 days to get their hands on one, they probably deserve a fix! Getting it sorted will do more than the sly digs at the competition :) *Sighs* Less of the FUD please. The 360 can do native 1080p and you don’t need HDMI to do it, it just doesn’t have any content rendered at the resolution yet.

The 1080i issue doesn’t effect many people, mainly those with early HDTV’s, particulary CRT ones. As they probably queued up for 3 days to get their hands on one, they probably deserve a fix!

Getting it sorted will do more than the sly digs at the competition :)

]]> By: Remle The Dog /blog/2006/11/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/comment-page-1/#comment-788 Remle The Dog Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:06:23 +0000 /blog/2006/11/28/scaling-issues-on-the-ps3/#comment-788 Stephen - while I get what you are saying you are slightly incorrect. Interlaced does not also mean that the horizontal (left to right) resolution gets halved only the vertical (top to bottom). In other words on the first 1/60 of a second the TV will draw 540 lines from top to bottom alternating lines but it will draw those lines at full cross-wide resolution. That is the entire 1920 pixels across. Stephen - while I get what you are saying you are slightly incorrect. Interlaced does not also mean that the horizontal (left to right) resolution gets halved only the vertical (top to bottom). In other words on the first 1/60 of a second the TV will draw 540 lines from top to bottom alternating lines but it will draw those lines at full cross-wide resolution. That is the entire 1920 pixels across.

]]>