|
|
|
Wii V2 late '07 to ship with HD dvd player and 1080!!?????
|
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
26. November 2006 @ 00:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah Ill just buy components when they are in stock not goign to bid over 100us on ebay
would any of oyu do that for carp components???
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
27. November 2006 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
@wolf
I didn't see in there, anywhere that it stated that S-Video does or does not do 480p. In fact, it stated that S-Video is technically high definition, just the lowest quality form of it...
Which in Technical terms, would equate to 480p; the lowest quality form of HDTV.
I'd like some stronger evidence than that link, as it doesn't prove that I'm wrong, in fact after reading it, it further supports my original statement.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
Senior Member
|
27. November 2006 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
Finally found it but here it is. http://www.dvdo.com/faq/faq_isu.php
"The composite, S-video and component inputs accept standard definition NTSC (480i) and PAL/SECAM (576i) signals. These standard definition signals are deinterlaced by the iScan Ultra. Note that the component inputs of the iScan Ultra do not process nor pass through Progressive signals (480p/576p) nor high definition signals (720p/1080i). These types of signals should be sent to the analog passthrough input of the iScan Ultra, or to the display directly. See iScan Ultra FAQ #7 for more information."
I knew it didn't support 480p (sorry), I just couldn't find anything to back it up.
Also, http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/...02003145945.pdf
It doesn't say wether S Video carries 480p or not but it says on all the other cables that they carry HD (except for compostie and S Video)
I also went back and read the Wikipedia about it and it does say,
"Due to a lack of bandwidth, S-Video connections are generally not considered suitable for high-definition video signals. As a result, HD sources are generally connected to a monitor by way of analog component video or wideband digital methods (usually HDMI or DVI)."
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. November 2006 @ 17:13
|
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 11:23 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Note that the component inputs of the iScan Ultra do not process nor pass through Progressive signals (480p/576p) nor high definition signals (720p/1080i).
That says component can not. Not S-Video.
S-Video can do 480p, which is the lowest quality of HDTV, though not necessarily recomended for high quality viewing, due to low bandwidth capabilities. However, in most cases, 480p does not require higher bandwidth than S-Video can handle. There have been rare cases with a FEW devices not accepting it as a 480p output source, claiming that for high quality/high motion sources it may have some artifacts, but it is sufficient in nearly all cases for the low end resolution of 480p.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. November 2006 @ 11:23
|
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 12:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 12:39 |
Link to this message
|
No. It doesn't.
It states that component cables(not to be confused with composite, as stated in numerous sets of parenthesis) support HDTV very well, because of their higher bandwidth capabilities. It also states that S-Video gives much better quality, and sports some higher bandwidth because it seperates the signal in a much similar fashion to component cables. While it does state that component has a higher bandwidth than S Video(Which is not being disputed here), it never states any figures about S Video's capabilities regarding Progressive scan.
Sorry, still waiting.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 12:44 |
Link to this message
|
It says "S-Video is commonly used on consumer DVD players, VTRs, and modern game consoles. It is also available on some professional equipment and computer video capture and playback cards. However, S-Video cannot transmit HDTV signals since there is not enough available bandwidth to carry the video".
I'm not tryin to fight or anything but I still believe that it does not support 480p.
|
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
I think a huge discrepency in a lot of the HD enthusiast sites is that a lot of people (Myself included) do not like to acknowledge 480p as true High Def. It's not a higher resolution with smaller pixels, it's just Progressive scan, instead of the old scanlines. It's technology that's been around for a while now, long before most stores were even screaming "HIGH DEFINITION!!!" They've been selling progresive scan televisions since the late 80's and the early nineties; with S video, but not component. That seems like a good indicator that it can support Progressive images.
But again, I think a lot of it comes back to the fact that many enthusiasts don't like to call 480p high def, some of them will argue it to the death; so it can cause some discrepencies. This is why many sites will gladly say that component supports hd well; but they generally stay completely away from saying that S video does or does not support high definition. I can see where you're coming from, but there's a lot of opinion that goes into the arguments about whether 480p is high def or not, and that is why it's so hard to find supporting arguments on the topic.
Don't get me wrong, like I said, I can see where you're coming from. Believe me. Either way, it made for a very interesting debate, and made my work day a little less dull. :D
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 13:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes, I've searched alot lately trying to find a good answer but like you said there isn't alot to find on this topic. I'll agree that I can see where huge arguments could occur on wether 480p is HD or not. So unless somebody like diablos or somebody steps in and says something to back me (or you for that matter) up, I'll just agree because I'm out of information.
|
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 15:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol; I haven't seen him around here much. But I certainly wouldn't mind gettinghis take on the questin, even if he proves me wrong. I just like hearing proof one way or another, personally. I've never minded being proven wrong; with the number of posts I've done on this board, it's happened a fair share of times, believe me.
Anywho, interesting discussion nonetheless.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
|
oofRome
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 18:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 18:32 |
Link to this message
|
Wow I see it and I guess I believe it but if I read that right did it say 1080i through S Video and component. I know that can't be right. Sorry no offence but I know one of the links I looked at said S Video didn't have enough bandwith to carry HD signals. I'll believe 480p through S Video but I'm not sure about anything higher. But then I really don't understand why that would be wrong becuase it looks like a good source. Then again I don't believe 720p and 1080i through S Video. Not trying to go up agianst all senior members or anything lol but, IMO thats just unbeliveable (with the exception of the 480p part).
|
|
oofRome
Senior Member
|
28. November 2006 @ 19:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah good point.
|
Senior Member
|
4. December 2006 @ 12:31 |
Link to this message
|
Well, let's remember that 1080i isn't really much higher than 480p to begin with, and it's already very susceptable to artifacts. So, I suppose, it's not such a stretch, it would only be 60 more lines rendered and transmitted, it's hardly a stretch, but your receiving television would have to be set up to receive the signal through it that way.
Also, it should be noted that many video cards use an S-video connector to adapt to HDTV component cable. Which means they are initially transmitting through it, while still supporting your HD. So, it's not THAT unbelievable, just not something I would suggest, again, do to artifacts and other 'noise' issues.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
|
DVDRyaN
Junior Member
|
6. December 2006 @ 17:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
[quote=handsom]lol; I doubt he'll really listen to me.
Seriously, notice he stopped posting. I see tablets posts everywhere and 1/2 the time he doesnt know what he is talking about. and 1/2 those times he is the starter of the thread. he either spams because he wants to advance in rank or because he is ignorant and believes what he is saying.
this is what he thought Wii stood for.
WORLD
INTERACTIVE
INTERTANMENT
(QUOTE)"OR WII IT SOUNDS DUMB BUT IT BASICLLY EXPLANES THE WII TO THE CORE AND DOESN'T HIDE ANYTHING"
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. December 2006 @ 17:46
|
Newbie
|
7. December 2006 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
Let me help you guys with this one. S-video is a "type" of component cabling because the luminance and chrominance are split to seperate wires. However, component as we know it (the R-G-B connector) is superior due to the fact that brightness and contrast are seperated by color, and the colors red and blue are seperated from each other, resulting in a better rendering of the source data.
S-video is not capable of producing an interlaced signal higher than 480, but it can produce 480p, it just won't look as good as component cables do.
A component cable is capable of producing interlaced signals up to 1080i, and Progressive signals up to 720p. Anything higher requires the use of digital cables such as DVI or HDMI due to bandwidth requirements.
Also, 480p is not high definition, it is simply a different scanning method for displaying standard definition. Since standard definition is 480 lines for NTSC (actually 486, but that's a whole 'nother issue), anything higher than that would be "higher definition". 720 is the next highest display mode, which makes it high definition.
So hansome is indeed correct.
So going back to the original post, Nintendo could release a 720p system that would be high definition, since they are using component cables. I'm not sure if they could modify the current hardware with a flash update, but why would they? They could sell the new model for $300. Think of it in the same way the 360 and the PS3 have two versions, with one version better and higher-priced.
Hope that all made sense!
Feel the Burn!
|
Senior Member
|
7. December 2006 @ 08:27 |
Link to this message
|
While I love hearing someone argue on my side, I am honestly curious if you have what most would consider an 'infallible' source for this; the debate has been rather ongoing, due to the nature of Progressive versus interlaced. Some can argue that because it is rendering extra lines, rather than scanline interlacing; that it in fact is a higher resolution, aka definition.
So, by definitive standards, 480p would technically(And really we're talking technical electronic definitions here, so it fits) be more than standard definition. As such, it can be classified as HD signal.
However, I strongly believe there is an easy way to end this debate that would make both sides of the argument happy:
Give me a lot of money(I don't keep it, stick with me here). I go around to all the companies that produce television related products, and explain to them this debate, and the confusion and debate it spurs. I get the, to agree that S-Video is 'Extra Definition' but not 'High Definition'. They agree to stop manufacturing these silly televisions that are "EDTV equipped" since it is only adding to the confusion for many consumers just getting into higher end equipment.
They agree to start actually printing in their brochures, and on their packages, a chart that lists SDTV, EDTV, and HDTV with checkboxes for each, stating what each television supports. Below, would be a quick explanation of each. Standard definition would, of course, be 480i. EDTV would be 480p, and the oft' fabled, but supposedly once existent 720i. and HDTV would be 720p/1080i and above. Eventually, they may need a higher classification above 1080p, and that could be decided at a later time.
Stores could use this chart as well. This would end confusion among consumers who don't understand, and electronic zealots like us who can't stop arguing. Rather than being sensible and saying that S-Video is EDTV, they have instead starting selling 'special' EDTVs at slightly-higher-than-normal prices; when S-Video has been around for a couple decades now. If they'd stop that, and just get down to a basic, industry wide chart, this argument wouldn't exist.
This could also be a handy reference for movie players, game systems, and other things. It'd sure save some time, wouldn't it?
Ultimately, I feel best calling S-Video(480p) EDTV, but some companies already started using that specification incorrectly, as a way to get more money for the same old technology. It's really frustrating.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
Senior Member
|
7. December 2006 @ 16:30 |
Link to this message
|
That sounds like a good idea to me. And I also think we can safely call 480p ED (Enhansed Deffinition), and agree that S Video will carry that signal. Personally I think they should stop making 480i TVs and just make all TVs atleast 480p, and then call anything higher (720p,1080i, 1080p) HD. As nice as this would be though I can see alot of problems with only manufacturing 480p TVs and higher. Because for one all TV prices would probablly go up. Two, I don't know alot about smaller TVs with HD but I would think that there would be no point in making 13" TVs 480p becase you might not be able to tell a difference. But it would be nice if everything went to atleast ED and leave the old 480i.
Sorry I forgot about what this original thread was about and got off topic.
But they could release an update and make it 720p for games probablly (but I'm not sure about video because it would take more hardware power). Because the 360 released an update that allowed it to pass 1080p through VGA.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. December 2006 @ 16:34
|
Newbie
|
11. December 2006 @ 06:04 |
Link to this message
|
hansome: the closest thing we have to an infallable source is the HDTV Grand Alliance, who define high definition as:
"a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in both the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9".
According to them, it really has nothing to do with interlaced or Progressive scanning, because even though Progressive scanning provides a slightly better vertical resolution, it only has half the frame rate of an interlaced signal.
However, though the FCC accepted the Grand Alliance's recommendations for high definition, they rejected the parts that defined resolution, scanning formats, and aspect ratios.
Leave it the FCC to encourage confusion and, to our delight, debate! ;)
|
Senior Member
|
11. December 2006 @ 07:18 |
Link to this message
|
Interestingly enough, I don't know that non-Progressive televisions are even being produced anymore. They all seem to have S video and Progressive support; the problem seems really to be that most consumers don't understand what it is, and no devices come with it, which certainly doesn't help spread consumer awareness.
I'm all for the EDTV standard, but the FCC has refused to accept a definition for Progressive scan 480p. They have said that 480i the standard. So, they have established that it is superior to standard, but it is not HD. Which, in english, means it isn't Normal, and it isn't great, but it better than normal and less than great. Thanks for that FCC. :D
I think game companies should have standardized S video years ago; since most televisions have had them for over a decade; if they had introduced it with the PS2, for example, I think that many more consumers would be using it now, because it supplies a better image. (And if put in as a standard, then more developers would have used it, methinks)
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
Senior Member
|
18. February 2007 @ 07:56 |
Link to this message
|
I hate to bring up something this old but, I just read this.
http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domestic/...res/97968.shtml
MYTH: S-video is fine for HD video.
No, no, no. Get to the Radio Shack* and upgrade your cables, son. S-video and its close cousin, the composite cable, are strictly standard-def and are relics from another generation. If your TV supports it, you should always shoot for component cables, a VGA cable, or DVI/HDMI. S-Video and composite are dead, dead, dead, and shouldn't be used unless you have no choice.
|
Member
|
18. February 2007 @ 11:22 |
Link to this message
|
Apparently Nintendo said there system is completely compatible of 720p,just they haven?t used it, most new GPU's especially from ATi will be compatible with at least 1366x768, but the firmware on the Wii's GPU is set to 480p max resolution, Nintendo could realise a massive dash update that includes the firmware for HDTV res, but it would be a huge update and would have to be tested lots.
The only thing the Wii can't run is the HD DVD's
Check out max console forums for more information on this.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
18. February 2007 @ 23:39 |
Link to this message
|
Well it wouldnt be suprising if it could I mean the GPU is 343mhz and runs only 480p while the 360's is 500mhz a bit more but not much and runs at 1080p so yeah why not run 720p that would be so cool the Wii would have a clear path to victory in the 7th gen
-Great Gameplay
-Crystal Clear Graphics
it would have both factors.
|
Member
|
19. February 2007 @ 04:00 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Apparently Nintendo said there system is completely compatible of 720p,just they haven?t used it
BINGO! With component cables the Wii is capable of not only 480p, but also of 720p and even 1080i, it's just a matter of software. The difference with the XBOX 360 is that it not only has the option of component cables and VGA, Microsoft requires that all games are certified for at least 720p and if 1080i is not offered in the game, the console upconverts the signal to achieve it.
Even the PS2, which is nowhere near as powerful as the Wii, could achieve 1080i when equipped with component cables. Don't believe me? Well, I happen to have a component equipped PS2 and GT4 offers 1080i. I've seen it on my 720p/1080i LCD HDTV many times. So, as I said before it's a matter of software. Just keep your fingers crossed and sooner than later you'll start to see Wii games offering HD.
Razengan!!!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
27. February 2007 @ 16:15 |
Link to this message
|
@Razengan
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed the PS2 thing, although, interestingly enough, 1080i is only slightly higher than the more commonly supported 480p. 720p was only supported by a few games (AKA GT4, Socom III and a couple others I can't recall). That's the real proof that even a low end system can do some degree of high definition.
Either way, it's an intriguing bit of info that really puts some perspective on things.
Although, there are a few other factors involved, which will make life more difficult on the Wii than it's competitiors. Not only are more users coming to expectn hi-def, but they are expecting hi-def with the same texture quality and effects that other systems see commonly. So the Wii is trying to win both sides of a scale at once, it has to try and produce better, more detailed textures, effects, and even lighting; while also meeting people on some level, for hi-def. Quite frankly it's only a few years before 480p just won't cut it for gamers, but then, Nintendo may have a Wii SP, etc. So who knows. It wouldn't be a bad idea, since it's not a NECESSARY function, anymore than a gameboy's backlight was(Seriously though, would you ever consider going back?).
I firmly believe that at least 720p is coming down the pipe for the Wii, in some way or another, how and when is to be seen. In the meantime though, I'm enjoying my game system for the fun and unique gameplay that I have come to expect from Nintendo over this last year of DS usage. And in the meantime that's enough for me.
Will I upgrade to a hi-def Wii if they give me the option?
Almost definitely. I'd probably keep the old one to tinker with too, :D
As for DVD, it's been proven by some less than legitimate users, that the system is physically more than capable of DVD playback, which proves that Nintendo was(For unknown reasons) holding back on that feature. I'm sure that they'll either sell that functionality or that they'll include it in Wii 2.0, SP, whatev re-release comes in a couple years.
A positive point among all this, because the idea of an upgraded system may not sound good to most consumers; is as follows:
Nintendo does not traditionally release a new system, and drop support for the old one. Quite contrary, they encourage continuing support of the old format for users who have already purchased. The gameboy line of products has been great evidence of that. When the GB Pocket was released, it provided a better experience, but was not required for new games. The color offered a tiered, multi-compatible interface, to ease the transition for users, and even the GBA offered continuing support for GB/C titles. The SP, again, was a more 'convenient' model, but was far from necessary for users to upgrade to. I believe that the Wii re-release will be more than worthwhile for the 'hardcore', but completely unnecessary for the average and lite gamers, who will lose nothin by keeping their old models. Such is the traditional way of Nintendo.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
|
