widescreen support

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen monitor or if they
can output letterboxed to a standard 4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a huge
difference over 480i? is (true) widescreen gaming worth the investment?
the hd that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.
37 answers Last reply
More about widescreen support
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Khee Mao wrote:
    > just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen monitor or if
    they
    > can output letterboxed to a standard 4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a
    huge
    > difference over 480i? is (true) widescreen gaming worth the
    investment?
    > the hd that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.

    IMHO, there is a very noticeable difference between 480i and 480p. As
    for widescreen enabed games displaying on a 4:3, I believe any game
    that supports true 16:9 also has a 4:3 mode as well, so you'd be fine
    there.

    Now is true widescreen gaming worth it? Perhaps not for gaming, as
    there aren't that many true 16:9 games that I can recall, but for DVD
    movies and HDTV programming it is worth it in my opinion.

    I'd suggest stopping by www.hdtvarcade.com and www.avsforum.com to get
    more answers.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
    news:1112127718.610143.156350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Khee Mao wrote:
    >> just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen monitor or if
    > they
    >> can output letterboxed to a standard 4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a
    > huge
    >> difference over 480i? is (true) widescreen gaming worth the
    > investment?
    >> the hd that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.
    >
    > IMHO, there is a very noticeable difference between 480i and 480p. As
    > for widescreen enabed games displaying on a 4:3, I believe any game
    > that supports true 16:9 also has a 4:3 mode as well, so you'd be fine
    > there.


    yeah, but I'd really like to be able to play 16:9 games in 16:9, despite
    (potentially) having a 4:3 hdtv. I totally wouldn't mind letterboxing to
    accomplish this, I just don't know if this kind of setup is supported.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Quote:
    From: big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com (Khee Mao) is 480p a huge
    difference over 480i? :Quote

    This will depend on the TV. Some tv's (like my sony) will convert 480i
    to a higher res. automatically. Like my sony converts 480i to 960i. Im
    not ever really watching a 480i picture. When I play game in 960i then
    go to 480p there really is not much of a difference.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    I don't see the big deal about 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i. I really
    can't see the difference between any of them. The problem stems from
    having low res graphics shown at high resolution. The graphics will
    still look low res regardless of the screen resolution.

    You're better served just getting component or S-video cables because
    those will make a night and day difference from standard coax or
    composite.

    - Jordan
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    I would love some of that crack you are smoking Jordan!? No difference
    between 480i and 1080i? I just moved my xbox from a reg tv with
    component, to a reg tv with composite and the difference is noticeable
    even to my wifes completely casual observance of picture quality....

    as for whether or not to go widescreen, for gaming I say no, for movies
    I say yes.....my parents have a 65 hdtv widescreen and it just has
    never looked right to me for games, unless they have a widescreen
    cam(madden, ncaa), and when you set your x-box to widescreen, it can
    sometimes get screwy with the stretching scheme your tv uses.....

    Chuck
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Jordan wrote:
    > I don't see the big deal about 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i. I really
    > can't see the difference between any of them.

    Perhaps this will help?

    http://www.lenscrafters.com/
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:d2cbma$mrk$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
    > just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen
    > monitor or if they can output letterboxed to a standard
    > 4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a huge difference over 480i?
    > is (true) widescreen gaming worth the investment? the hd
    > that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.
    >

    If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and get
    the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard for
    all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in 16:9.
    That would be a waste of screen.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:d2cbma$mrk$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
    > just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen
    > monitor or if they can output letterboxed to a standard
    > 4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a huge difference over 480i?
    > is (true) widescreen gaming worth the investment? the hd
    > that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.
    >

    If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and get
    the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard for
    all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in 16:9.
    That would be a waste of screen.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:Rmn2e.114832$r55.49448@attbi_s52...
    >
    > "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:d2cbma$mrk$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
    >> just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen
    >> monitor or if they can output letterboxed to a standard
    >> 4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a huge difference over 480i?
    >> is (true) widescreen gaming worth the investment? the hd
    >> that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.
    >>
    >
    > If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and get
    > the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard for
    > all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in 16:9.
    > That would be a waste of screen.
    >
    >

    1) direct-view crts still have the best picture
    2) direct-view crts still have the best service record and have a proven
    track record of longevity
    3) direct-view crts don't lag or have audio/video synchronization problems
    4) stretching/zooming or in any way altering the source material to fit
    your screen is usually ugly
    5) the 16:9 area on a 36 inch 4:3 crt is just barely smaller than the
    largest 16:9 direct-view crt widescreen
    6) the lack of a standard widescreen aspect ratio means even widescreen tvs
    will letterbox certain material
    7) the vast majority of programming is still 4:3, and the 4:3 area on a 36
    inch 4:3 ratio tv is almost double that of a 34 inch widescreen.
    8) a 36 inch 4:3 crt hd is only $1700 (with stand)


    I'm not exactly crazy about the aesthetics of the unit itself, or the bulk,
    but I'm convinced that a 4:3 hd is the best (least flawed) transitional
    solution...at least until there's a lot more widescreen
    programming/games...in 5 years, when 1080p sets are the norm and all of the
    service and performance issues are ironed out with dlp/lcd/d-ila, I could
    move this to the bedroom, or elsewhere...
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Khee Mao wrote:
    > "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:Rmn2e.114832$r55.49448@attbi_s52...
    >
    >>"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>news:d2cbma$mrk$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
    >>
    >>>just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen
    >>>monitor or if they can output letterboxed to a standard
    >>>4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a huge difference over 480i?
    >>>is (true) widescreen gaming worth the investment? the hd
    >>>that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.
    >>>
    >>
    >>If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and get
    >>the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard for
    >>all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in 16:9.
    >>That would be a waste of screen.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > 1) direct-view crts still have the best picture
    > 2) direct-view crts still have the best service record and have a proven
    > track record of longevity
    > 3) direct-view crts don't lag or have audio/video synchronization problems
    > 4) stretching/zooming or in any way altering the source material to fit
    > your screen is usually ugly
    > 5) the 16:9 area on a 36 inch 4:3 crt is just barely smaller than the
    > largest 16:9 direct-view crt widescreen
    > 6) the lack of a standard widescreen aspect ratio means even widescreen tvs
    > will letterbox certain material
    > 7) the vast majority of programming is still 4:3, and the 4:3 area on a 36
    > inch 4:3 ratio tv is almost double that of a 34 inch widescreen.
    > 8) a 36 inch 4:3 crt hd is only $1700 (with stand)

    What brand and where are you buying one at that price $1,700?
    You can get one cheaper than that...


    >
    > I'm not exactly crazy about the aesthetics of the unit itself, or the bulk,
    > but I'm convinced that a 4:3 hd is the best (least flawed) transitional
    > solution...at least until there's a lot more widescreen
    > programming/games...in 5 years, when 1080p sets are the norm and all of the
    > service and performance issues are ironed out with dlp/lcd/d-ila, I could
    > move this to the bedroom, or elsewhere...
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "massivegrooves" <massivegrooves@massivegrooves.net> wrote in message
    news:424A1296.9020607@massivegrooves.net...
    >
    > What brand and where are you buying one at that price $1,700?
    > You can get one cheaper than that...
    >
    sony kd36xs955. superfine pitch. $1700 to circuit city includes stand,
    delivery, and a place to return it if there are problems.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Khee Mao wrote:
    > "massivegrooves" <massivegrooves@massivegrooves.net> wrote in message
    > news:424A1296.9020607@massivegrooves.net...
    >
    >>What brand and where are you buying one at that price $1,700?
    >>You can get one cheaper than that...
    >>
    >
    > sony kd36xs955. superfine pitch. $1700 to circuit city includes stand,
    > delivery, and a place to return it if there are problems.
    >

    gotcha, I was thinking it might be something like that...a Sony.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:21:34 -0800, "Khee Mao"
    <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:


    >yeah, but I'd really like to be able to play 16:9 games in 16:9, despite
    >(potentially) having a 4:3 hdtv. I totally wouldn't mind letterboxing to
    >accomplish this, I just don't know if this kind of setup is supported.
    >

    You can just set the xbox to output the graphics in 4:3 even tho
    16:9..
    thats what i do on the roomies hidef sony 4"3 tv
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Khee Mao" wrote in message
    > just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen monitor or if they
    > can output letterboxed to a standard 4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a huge
    > difference over 480i? is (true) widescreen gaming worth the investment?
    > the hd that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.

    My eyes can easily distinguish 480p over 480i, especially when there is text
    on-screen. All the artifacting that is normally around text at 480i is
    virtually eliminated at 480p.

    As for 4:3 versus 16:9 for HD, I guess it depends on what size HDTV you are
    looking at. If its small, 4:3 probably makes better sense than 16:9. If
    its 30" or more, I'd go with 16:9.

    Cheers,
    -Eric
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Robin"wrote in message

    > If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and get
    > the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard for
    > all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in 16:9.
    > That would be a waste of screen.

    2007? Your glass is half full. :^)

    I'm thinking more like 2015.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1112148215.917088.5170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >I don't see the big deal about 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i. I really
    > can't see the difference between any of them. The problem stems from
    > having low res graphics shown at high resolution. The graphics will
    > still look low res regardless of the screen resolution.

    It all depends on the quality HDTV you have.
    I own 5 HDTV's and 5 SDTV's. On my "lower end" HDTV's 480p DVD's and
    console games don't really look any different over SD 480i.
    However, on my better quality sets the difference is "almost" night and day.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Boody Bandit" <lightenup@francis.news> wrote in message
    news:-MudnarFx9l0PNffRVn-gQ@suscom.com...
    >
    > "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:1112148215.917088.5170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >>I don't see the big deal about 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i. I really
    >> can't see the difference between any of them. The problem stems from
    >> having low res graphics shown at high resolution. The graphics will
    >> still look low res regardless of the screen resolution.
    >
    > It all depends on the quality HDTV you have.
    > I own 5 HDTV's and 5 SDTV's. On my "lower end" HDTV's 480p DVD's and
    > console games don't really look any different over SD 480i.
    > However, on my better quality sets the difference is "almost" night and
    > day.

    In defense of my lower end (less expensive HDTV's) hi-def sets, "all" of my
    SDTV's are Sony Wega's and Panny Tau's.
    They are excellent (IMO the best) direct view sets on the market.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Boody Bandit" <lightenup@francis.news> wrote in message
    news:eqmdnbGhX4wVP9ffRVn-ow@suscom.com...
    >
    > "Boody Bandit" <lightenup@francis.news> wrote in message
    > news:-MudnarFx9l0PNffRVn-gQ@suscom.com...
    >>
    >> "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >> news:1112148215.917088.5170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >>>I don't see the big deal about 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i. I really
    >>> can't see the difference between any of them. The problem stems from
    >>> having low res graphics shown at high resolution. The graphics will
    >>> still look low res regardless of the screen resolution.
    >>
    >> It all depends on the quality HDTV you have.
    >> I own 5 HDTV's and 5 SDTV's. On my "lower end" HDTV's 480p DVD's and
    >> console games don't really look any different over SD 480i.
    >> However, on my better quality sets the difference is "almost" night and
    >> day.
    >
    > In defense of my lower end (less expensive HDTV's) hi-def sets, "all" of
    > my SDTV's are Sony Wega's and Panny Tau's.
    > They are excellent (IMO the best) direct view sets on the market.
    >

    I have a Wega but what the hell is a Panny Tau? It sounds like a line from
    Pooty Tang.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote in message
    news:OO-dnW2x8uSvddffRVn-2g@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Boody Bandit" <lightenup@francis.news> wrote in message
    > news:eqmdnbGhX4wVP9ffRVn-ow@suscom.com...
    >>
    >> "Boody Bandit" <lightenup@francis.news> wrote in message
    >> news:-MudnarFx9l0PNffRVn-gQ@suscom.com...
    >>>
    >>> "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:1112148215.917088.5170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >>>>I don't see the big deal about 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i. I really
    >>>> can't see the difference between any of them. The problem stems from
    >>>> having low res graphics shown at high resolution. The graphics will
    >>>> still look low res regardless of the screen resolution.
    >>>
    >>> It all depends on the quality HDTV you have.
    >>> I own 5 HDTV's and 5 SDTV's. On my "lower end" HDTV's 480p DVD's and
    >>> console games don't really look any different over SD 480i.
    >>> However, on my better quality sets the difference is "almost" night and
    >>> day.
    >>
    >> In defense of my lower end (less expensive HDTV's) hi-def sets, "all" of
    >> my SDTV's are Sony Wega's and Panny Tau's.
    >> They are excellent (IMO the best) direct view sets on the market.
    >>
    >
    > I have a Wega but what the hell is a Panny Tau? It sounds like a line
    > from Pooty Tang.

    LOL!
    Pooty Tang was funny.
    Panny = Panasonic
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    garciyalater@hotmail.com wrote:
    > I would love some of that crack you are smoking Jordan!? No
    difference
    > between 480i and 1080i?

    If you have a 640 x 480 image it doesn't matter if it's being shown at
    480i or 1080i, you're limited to seeing 640 x 480. At 1080i it will be
    the cleanest, sharpest 640 x 480 you've ever seen, but it won't be
    anything more than that.

    The problem is that the best HD display in the world is still limited
    by the source material.

    - Jordan
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >
    > "Robin"wrote in message
    >
    >> If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and
    >> get
    >> the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard
    >> for
    >> all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in
    >> 16:9.
    >> That would be a waste of screen.
    >
    > 2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    >
    > I'm thinking more like 2015.
    >

    Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't it
    some type of government mandate that they want all TV
    broadcast in digital by 2007? They want to convert the
    bandwidth currently used for analog for cell, radio,
    emergency, etc.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Robin wrote:
    > "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:d2cbma$mrk$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
    >
    >>just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen
    >>monitor or if they can output letterboxed to a standard
    >>4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a huge difference over 480i?
    >>is (true) widescreen gaming worth the investment? the hd
    >>that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.
    >>
    >
    >
    > If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and get
    > the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard for
    > all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in 16:9.
    > That would be a waste of screen.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    I personally dont think its going to happen (total convergence to
    broadcast) by 2007. There's already been talk they are going to extend
    that deadline a few more years. I remember watching something on CNN on
    it about a month back.

    Dont get me wrong though, I would agree to buy a HDTV for my next
    purchase. I'm personally hoping Organic LED tvs are
    mainstream/reasonably priced (like LCD now) by then.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Khee Mao wrote:
    > "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:Rmn2e.114832$r55.49448@attbi_s52...
    >
    >>"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>news:d2cbma$mrk$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
    >>
    >>>just wondering if widescreen games require a widescreen
    >>>monitor or if they can output letterboxed to a standard
    >>>4:3 monitor. also, is 480p a huge difference over 480i?
    >>>is (true) widescreen gaming worth the investment? the hd
    >>>that I'm leaning towards is 4:3.
    >>>
    >>
    >>If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and get
    >>the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard for
    >>all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in 16:9.
    >>That would be a waste of screen.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > 1) direct-view crts still have the best picture
    > 2) direct-view crts still have the best service record and have a proven
    > track record of longevity
    > 3) direct-view crts don't lag or have audio/video synchronization problems
    > 4) stretching/zooming or in any way altering the source material to fit
    > your screen is usually ugly
    > 5) the 16:9 area on a 36 inch 4:3 crt is just barely smaller than the
    > largest 16:9 direct-view crt widescreen
    > 6) the lack of a standard widescreen aspect ratio means even widescreen tvs
    > will letterbox certain material
    > 7) the vast majority of programming is still 4:3, and the 4:3 area on a 36
    > inch 4:3 ratio tv is almost double that of a 34 inch widescreen.
    > 8) a 36 inch 4:3 crt hd is only $1700 (with stand)
    >
    >
    > I'm not exactly crazy about the aesthetics of the unit itself, or the bulk,
    > but I'm convinced that a 4:3 hd is the best (least flawed) transitional
    > solution...at least until there's a lot more widescreen
    > programming/games...in 5 years, when 1080p sets are the norm and all of the
    > service and performance issues are ironed out with dlp/lcd/d-ila, I could
    > move this to the bedroom, or elsewhere...
    >
    >
    I think you're right. But I have my eyes peeled for OLED... I think it's
    the LCD killer. It's Brighter, Less Power Consumption, and cheap when
    becomes ubiquitous.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:Puy2e.2457$kT5.2214@attbi_s21...
    >
    > "Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    > news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >>
    >> "Robin"wrote in message
    >>
    >>> If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and
    >>> get
    >>> the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard
    >>> for
    >>> all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in
    >>> 16:9.
    >>> That would be a waste of screen.
    >>
    >> 2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    >>
    >> I'm thinking more like 2015.
    >>
    >
    > Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't it
    > some type of government mandate that they want all TV
    > broadcast in digital by 2007? They want to convert the
    > bandwidth currently used for analog for cell, radio,
    > emergency, etc.
    >

    I even remember seeing a segment on TV where they were
    talking about subsidizing the tuner boxes that would then be
    required for those too poor to have cable or satellite.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:lzy2e.2460$kT5.1967@attbi_s21...
    >
    > "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:Puy2e.2457$kT5.2214@attbi_s21...
    >>
    >> "Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    >> news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >>>
    >>> "Robin"wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>> If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and get
    >>>> the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard for
    >>>> all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in 16:9.
    >>>> That would be a waste of screen.
    >>>
    >>> 2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    >>>
    >>> I'm thinking more like 2015.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't it some type of
    >> government mandate that they want all TV broadcast in digital by 2007?
    >> They want to convert the bandwidth currently used for analog for cell,
    >> radio, emergency, etc.
    >>
    >
    > I even remember seeing a segment on TV where they were talking about
    > subsidizing the tuner boxes that would then be required for those too poor
    > to have cable or satellite.
    >

    unless its been pushed back to '07, the date for the cutover is "supposed"
    to be 1/1/06.


    ain't gonna happen.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Robert P Holley wrote:
    > Jordan wrote:
    >
    >>I don't see the big deal about 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i. I really
    >>can't see the difference between any of them.
    >
    >
    > Perhaps this will help?
    >
    > http://www.lenscrafters.com/
    >
    that's usually a rebuttal for, "I'm poor".
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1112218275.019537.153710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > garciyalater@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> I would love some of that crack you are smoking Jordan!? No
    > difference
    >> between 480i and 1080i?
    >
    > If you have a 640 x 480 image it doesn't matter if it's being shown at
    > 480i or 1080i, you're limited to seeing 640 x 480. At 1080i it will be
    > the cleanest, sharpest 640 x 480 you've ever seen, but it won't be
    > anything more than that.
    >
    > The problem is that the best HD display in the world is still limited
    > by the source material.

    True, but some highend displays can do amazing things with limit source
    material.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Robin wrote:
    > "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:Puy2e.2457$kT5.2214@attbi_s21...
    >
    >>"Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    >>news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >>
    >>>"Robin"wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and
    >>>>get
    >>>>the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard
    >>>>for
    >>>>all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in
    >>>>16:9.
    >>>>That would be a waste of screen.
    >>>
    >>>2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    >>>
    >>>I'm thinking more like 2015.
    >>>
    >>
    >>Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't it
    >>some type of government mandate that they want all TV
    >>broadcast in digital by 2007? They want to convert the
    >>bandwidth currently used for analog for cell, radio,
    >>emergency, etc.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I even remember seeing a segment on TV where they were
    > talking about subsidizing the tuner boxes that would then be
    > required for those too poor to have cable or satellite.
    >
    >
    yes, that was the original plan. However, the FCC plan has been labeled
    by many as too ambigious. I think the problem was, that in order for
    it to take full swing, a higher percentage (forgot what the cut off is)
    has to not only have access to the broadcast but have HD capable TVs.
    This was the part that the legislation was unclear on. Since HDTV hasn't
    taken off as rapidly as analysts expected from the get-go, the FCC will
    be revising the act and adding a few more years (if not more) onto it
    for total convergence.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Boody Bandit wrote:
    > "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:1112218275.019537.153710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >>garciyalater@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>I would love some of that crack you are smoking Jordan!? No
    >>
    >>difference
    >>
    >>>between 480i and 1080i?
    >>
    >>If you have a 640 x 480 image it doesn't matter if it's being shown at
    >>480i or 1080i, you're limited to seeing 640 x 480. At 1080i it will be
    >>the cleanest, sharpest 640 x 480 you've ever seen, but it won't be
    >>anything more than that.
    >>
    >>The problem is that the best HD display in the world is still limited
    >>by the source material.
    >
    >
    > True, but some highend displays can do amazing things with limit source
    > material.
    >
    >
    I am by no means an expert in this, but isnt a native 1080i signal 1080
    scanlines interlaced? So wheere do 640 by 480 come in? isn't the signal
    1080 x (some dimension).
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "theOne" <theOneOne@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
    news:yjG2e.27568$hU7.14164@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    > Robin wrote:
    >> "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >> news:Puy2e.2457$kT5.2214@attbi_s21...
    >>
    >>>"Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    >>>news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >>>
    >>>>"Robin"wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and
    >>>>>get
    >>>>>the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the
    >>>>>standard for
    >>>>>all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in
    >>>>>16:9.
    >>>>>That would be a waste of screen.
    >>>>
    >>>>2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    >>>>
    >>>>I'm thinking more like 2015.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't
    >>>it some type of government mandate that they want all TV
    >>>broadcast in digital by 2007? They want to convert the
    >>>bandwidth currently used for analog for cell, radio,
    >>>emergency, etc.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> I even remember seeing a segment on TV where they were
    >> talking about subsidizing the tuner boxes that would then
    >> be required for those too poor to have cable or
    >> satellite.
    > yes, that was the original plan. However, the FCC plan has
    > been labeled by many as too ambigious. I think the problem
    > was, that in order for it to take full swing, a higher
    > percentage (forgot what the cut off is) has to not only
    > have access to the broadcast but have HD capable TVs. This
    > was the part that the legislation was unclear on. Since
    > HDTV hasn't taken off as rapidly as analysts expected from
    > the get-go, the FCC will be revising the act and adding a
    > few more years (if not more) onto it for total
    > convergence.

    You don't have to have an HDTV to get a digital broadcast.
    Just a tuner box capable of converting the signal to analog
    for an existing analog TV.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Robin wrote:
    > "theOne" <theOneOne@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
    > news:yjG2e.27568$hU7.14164@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >>Robin wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:Puy2e.2457$kT5.2214@attbi_s21...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    >>>>news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"Robin"wrote in message
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and
    >>>>>>get
    >>>>>>the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the
    >>>>>>standard for
    >>>>>>all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in
    >>>>>>16:9.
    >>>>>>That would be a waste of screen.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I'm thinking more like 2015.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't
    >>>>it some type of government mandate that they want all TV
    >>>>broadcast in digital by 2007? They want to convert the
    >>>>bandwidth currently used for analog for cell, radio,
    >>>>emergency, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I even remember seeing a segment on TV where they were
    >>>talking about subsidizing the tuner boxes that would then
    >>>be required for those too poor to have cable or
    >>>satellite.
    >>
    >>yes, that was the original plan. However, the FCC plan has
    >>been labeled by many as too ambigious. I think the problem
    >>was, that in order for it to take full swing, a higher
    >>percentage (forgot what the cut off is) has to not only
    >>have access to the broadcast but have HD capable TVs. This
    >>was the part that the legislation was unclear on. Since
    >>HDTV hasn't taken off as rapidly as analysts expected from
    >>the get-go, the FCC will be revising the act and adding a
    >>few more years (if not more) onto it for total
    >>convergence.
    >
    >
    > You don't have to have an HDTV to get a digital broadcast.
    > Just a tuner box capable of converting the signal to analog
    > for an existing analog TV.
    >
    >
    >
    I agree :) Please read previous post.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    theOne wrote:
    > Robin wrote:
    >
    >> "theOne" <theOneOne@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
    >> news:yjG2e.27568$hU7.14164@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >>
    >>> Robin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:Puy2e.2457$kT5.2214@attbi_s21...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Robin"wrote in message
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and
    >>>>>>> get
    >>>>>>> the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the
    >>>>>>> standard for
    >>>>>>> all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in
    >>>>>>> 16:9.
    >>>>>>> That would be a waste of screen.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> 2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm thinking more like 2015.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't
    >>>>> it some type of government mandate that they want all TV
    >>>>> broadcast in digital by 2007? They want to convert the
    >>>>> bandwidth currently used for analog for cell, radio,
    >>>>> emergency, etc.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I even remember seeing a segment on TV where they were
    >>>> talking about subsidizing the tuner boxes that would then
    >>>> be required for those too poor to have cable or
    >>>> satellite.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> yes, that was the original plan. However, the FCC plan has
    >>> been labeled by many as too ambigious. I think the problem
    >>> was, that in order for it to take full swing, a higher
    >>> percentage (forgot what the cut off is) has to not only
    >>> have access to the broadcast but have HD capable TVs. This
    >>> was the part that the legislation was unclear on. Since
    >>> HDTV hasn't taken off as rapidly as analysts expected from
    >>> the get-go, the FCC will be revising the act and adding a
    >>> few more years (if not more) onto it for total
    >>> convergence.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> You don't have to have an HDTV to get a digital broadcast.
    >> Just a tuner box capable of converting the signal to analog
    >> for an existing analog TV.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    > I agree :) Please read previous post.


    I did a google on the matter for ya.

    http://www.avrev.com/news/1004/21.dtv.html


    I guess the magic year will likely be 2009.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "theOne" <theOneOne@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
    news:_oH2e.16355$DW.12598@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
    > Robin wrote:
    >> "theOne" <theOneOne@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
    >> news:yjG2e.27568$hU7.14164@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >>
    >>>Robin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:Puy2e.2457$kT5.2214@attbi_s21...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>"Robin"wrote in message
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead
    >>>>>>>and
    >>>>>>>get
    >>>>>>>the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the
    >>>>>>>standard for
    >>>>>>>all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in
    >>>>>>>16:9.
    >>>>>>>That would be a waste of screen.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I'm thinking more like 2015.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't
    >>>>>it some type of government mandate that they want all
    >>>>>TV
    >>>>>broadcast in digital by 2007? They want to convert the
    >>>>>bandwidth currently used for analog for cell, radio,
    >>>>>emergency, etc.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I even remember seeing a segment on TV where they were
    >>>>talking about subsidizing the tuner boxes that would
    >>>>then
    >>>>be required for those too poor to have cable or
    >>>>satellite.
    >>>
    >>>yes, that was the original plan. However, the FCC plan
    >>>has
    >>>been labeled by many as too ambigious. I think the
    >>>problem
    >>>was, that in order for it to take full swing, a higher
    >>>percentage (forgot what the cut off is) has to not only
    >>>have access to the broadcast but have HD capable TVs.
    >>>This
    >>>was the part that the legislation was unclear on. Since
    >>>HDTV hasn't taken off as rapidly as analysts expected
    >>>from
    >>>the get-go, the FCC will be revising the act and adding a
    >>>few more years (if not more) onto it for total
    >>>convergence.
    >>
    >>
    >> You don't have to have an HDTV to get a digital
    >> broadcast.
    >> Just a tuner box capable of converting the signal to
    >> analog
    >> for an existing analog TV.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    > I agree :) Please read previous post.

    Yes, I see now. Thanks.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:Puy2e.2457$kT5.2214@attbi_s21...
    >
    > "Eric" <nospam@nospam.not> wrote in message
    > news:fQo2e.56$tI6.28@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    > >
    > > "Robin"wrote in message
    > >
    > >> If you are going to get an HD TV, why not go ahead and
    > >> get
    > >> the widescreen? In 2007 when digital TV is the standard
    > >> for
    > >> all broadcast TV, the vast majority of it will be in
    > >> 16:9.
    > >> That would be a waste of screen.
    > >
    > > 2007? Your glass is half full. :^)
    > >
    > > I'm thinking more like 2015.
    > >
    >
    > Somebody correct me if I am making things up, but isn't it
    > some type of government mandate that they want all TV
    > broadcast in digital by 2007? They want to convert the
    > bandwidth currently used for analog for cell, radio,
    > emergency, etc.

    There was legislation put into place for a 2007 target date. However, the
    broadcasters wouldn't be required to switch to digital unless a certain
    percentage of the consumers were able to receive digital signals
    off-the-air. I don't remember offhand what the percentage is, but seem to
    recall it being somewhere in the 75 to 80 percent range. This is mainly why
    I see analog broadcast "going dark" by 2007 not very likely. The "digital
    mandate" doesn't necessary mean that they have to be broadcasting 16:9 HD
    resolutions. Standard 4:3 resolutions, as long as they are digital, fall
    under the mandate.

    Do a google for the "ATSC Consortium" and I'm sure the 2007 "mandate date"
    is covered in the FAQs. I believe thats where I read it a while back.

    I'd love to see everything switch to not only digital, but also HD. Getting
    tired of watching the same HD stuff over and over. :^)
    Unfortunetly, the whole digital/HD transition thing in the US has been a
    complete nightmare so far. Hopefully HD-DVD (and/or BluRay) will speed
    things up.

    Cheers,
    -Eric
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    theOne wrote:

    > I am by no means an expert in this, but isnt a native 1080i signal
    1080
    > scanlines interlaced? So wheere do 640 by 480 come in? isn't the
    signal
    > 1080 x (some dimension).

    People are confusing the scanlines of the display with the resolution
    of the image being displayed.

    If I have a picture that has a native resolution of 640 x 480 it's
    ALWAYS going to be 640 x 480 regardless of the scanlines of the
    display.

    It's not like game designers are taking the time to make a duplicate
    graphic set and swtich over to high res graphics just because 1080i or
    720p is turned on. They're still showing the same old graphics, but
    with a higher scan rate on the display. X-Men Legends is a good
    example. If you have decent cables running to the set the graphics in
    480i and 720p look the same. The picture may be cleaner at 720p, but
    the physical graphics are the same.

    This is why I say that having component or s-video cables that actually
    give a better signal to the TV will make a bigger difference than
    480i/480p/720p/1080i.

    - Jordan
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Almost forgot:

    "In relation to your argument, I'm using a S-Video on a 43" Sony RPTV
    (not HD) and I also use the same xbox via composite input on a 27" HD
    Zenith CRT. The picture looks better on the CRT, I'm guessing because
    the picture isn't stretched as much and CRT is just better picture in
    general."

    There's a couple of things here... S-video should be night and day
    better than composite video. I connected both to the same set and was
    able to compare them by changing from input 1 to input 2 and I couldn't
    believe how long I had lived with composite video.

    BUT... With a 43" tv there are calibrations you need to do and the
    prime one is sharpness. I know this is going to seem counter-intuitive
    but you want the sharpness to be as close to 0 as possible.

    Here's a good guide for TV calibration:

    http://www.projectorcentral.com/good_video.htm

    Some fun facts from the link that most people don't know:

    BRIGHTNESS. Your owner's manual probably says that the brightness
    setting is used to control "brightness" or "picture intensity" or
    something other fuzzy non-descript term. The truth is that brightness
    is used to set the BLACK level in the picture.

    On most TVs and projectors in use today, brightness is set too high.
    That's because people think "a bright picture is good, so I will set it
    as bright as I can get." Well, that's nice in theory, but entirely
    wrong in practice. Setting the brightness level too high makes a black
    tuxedo look gray rather than black. It muddies up the shadow areas, and
    reduces the overall snap and crispness that the picture would have if
    properly calibrated.

    CONTRAST. The contrast control is similarly confusing. It is also often
    set too high on the theory that contrast is good, and therefore we
    might as well get the most we can out of our set by turning it all the
    way up. In fact, the contrast setting is used to control the intensity
    of the brightest highlights in the picture, so it is (oddly enough) the
    opposite of brightness control.

    COLOR. The color control on your set determines the level of color
    intensity in the image. One of the most common errors people make in
    calibrating their video systems is overdriving the color. That's what
    makes Larry King look reddish-orange on the TV at the gym. Overdriving
    color is common because once again, people naturally think, "I want to
    get as much color as I can out of this color TV, so I will crank it up
    some to make sure I get the most out of it!" No. Bad mistake.

    TINT or HUE. The tint control adjusts color balance rather than color
    intensity. It is an easy control to set properly, but for some reason
    many people don't get it right. When flesh tones look either too green
    or too magenta, a phenomenon you see with amazing frequency, it is
    because the tint control is not set properly.

    SHARPNESS or DETAIL. The final setting is sharpness or detail. Now,
    pray tell, who in their right mind wouldn't want the sharpest, most
    detailed picture they could get? And since there is a control that lets
    you turn it up, why not turn it up? That's what many folks do, and of
    course it's exactly the wrong thing to do.

    The sharpness control adds processed information to the picture that is
    NOT part of the original video signal. It adds artificially highlighted
    edges, and makes the picture look less natural than it otherwise would.
    This is most evident along the continuous edge of a dark object against
    a middle-toned background. When sharpness is overdriven the dark edge
    will be outlined by a white ringing effect that increases contrast just
    along the edge of your dark object. That edge "highlighting" effect is
    created by the sharpness control. It is an artificial manipulation of
    the image. It wasn't in the original scene, and it shouldn't be on your
    screen either.

    On most televisions, the optimum setting for sharpness is zero. On many
    digital projectors, the optimum setting is either in the low or middle
    part of the scale. Picture tube televisions and digital projectors
    behave differently in this regard; on a digital projector it is often
    possible to fuzz the image by setting sharpness too low.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

    Jordan wrote:
    > theOne wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I am by no means an expert in this, but isnt a native 1080i signal
    >
    > 1080
    >
    >>scanlines interlaced? So wheere do 640 by 480 come in? isn't the
    >
    > signal
    >
    >>1080 x (some dimension).
    >
    >
    > People are confusing the scanlines of the display with the resolution
    > of the image being displayed.
    >
    > If I have a picture that has a native resolution of 640 x 480 it's
    > ALWAYS going to be 640 x 480 regardless of the scanlines of the
    > display.
    >
    > It's not like game designers are taking the time to make a duplicate
    > graphic set and swtich over to high res graphics just because 1080i or
    > 720p is turned on. They're still showing the same old graphics, but
    > with a higher scan rate on the display. X-Men Legends is a good
    > example. If you have decent cables running to the set the graphics in
    > 480i and 720p look the same. The picture may be cleaner at 720p, but
    > the physical graphics are the same.
    >
    > This is why I say that having component or s-video cables that actually
    > give a better signal to the TV will make a bigger difference than
    > 480i/480p/720p/1080i.
    >
    > - Jordan
    >
    Ohh. I see what your saying Jordan. You are talking about the xbox. Does
    that apply to HDTV broadcasts too? The picture is just so gorgeous when
    watching broadcast television on High Def.


    In relation to your argument, I'm using a S-Video on a 43" Sony RPTV
    (not HD) and I also use the same xbox via composite input on a 27" HD
    Zenith CRT. The picture looks better on the CRT, I'm guessing because
    the picture isn't stretched as much and CRT is just better picture in
    general. Nonetheless the difference is negligible. I don't presume to
    see that much difference on the same TV when switching between the two
    cables. I don't know about how HD games look on the xbox because I've
    never really seen HD on the box. But if its anything like Digital
    Television, the difference is huge!

    By the way, isn't component and DVI on its way out the door for high
    def. I understand that HDMI gives the best signal transfer hands down
    between all the interfaces.
Ask a new question

Read More

Console Gaming Support Games Monitors Video Games