|
|
|
anyone here have the 360 and then got the Wii?
|
|
|
SDMFer
Member
|
7. December 2006 @ 10:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
For those that had the 360 for a while and just picked up the Wii as well (meaning planning on keeping both), just wondering what your unbiased thoughts are. I want to get one, and see a lot of good things on here about the wii, but i just want to make sure i still enjoy both systems and not one or the other individually. know what i mean?
let me know...
Thanks
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
trigga71
Member
|
7. December 2006 @ 13:54 |
Link to this message
|
i have a 360 and Wii and i love both. the 360 does have better graphics, online play. I love the wii as its a new aspect on gaming. I wish it had dvd playback, but other than its great also the backward compatibility is great (obviously).
360 pros
great graphics
DVD playback (HD-DVD with addon)
Hacked already (lol)
Mass storage Divice (hard drive) (top model)
Online play (pay)
360 Cons
online play (pay)
much larger than wii
no built in wireless
Wii Pros
small
new aspect on games and gaming in general
Virutal Consoles (pay)
Built in wireless
great backward compatibility
cheapest console
Wii Cons
No dvd playback
no built in hardwire ethernet
no HD
Front Load NES, DreamCast, Nintendo Wii, PlayStation 3, MacBook Pro (w/ Laser Etching), iPhone 8Gb (w/ Laser Etching)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. December 2006 @ 13:57
|
|
tabletpc
Suspended permanently
|
8. December 2006 @ 07:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
the wii does support hd
you just need to mickey mouse the connection
|
|
Almeja
Junior Member
|
8. December 2006 @ 09:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
You forgot the wii online playing ... no game is capable of that yet but there will be a lot XD starting with smash bros. XD check out the webpage www.smashbros.com I read the whole article on how did the creator decided to work on the new one and it says that nintendo first just wanted to make the game exaclty as the GC one but with online capabilities, which means that smash bros. and many other games will have online gaming XD
EDIT:
for free I guess cuz they wanna compete with the other systems ..in this case: 360
NEW 1.5 PSP OWNER :D!!!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. December 2006 @ 09:04
|
Senior Member
|
11. December 2006 @ 08:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I picked up a 360 on launch night, then the Wii on launch night, so I have and enjoy both.
First off, depsite tabletpc's statement, there is no 'mickeymousing' HD signal from the Wii. I have addressed that in the first thread it was posted in, and further refuse to acknowledge it, because it is so laughably invalid.
As for actually comparing the systems:
360:
HD Graphics
High quality textures, and effects designed to immerse you, which are moderately successful
Great Online Play
Movie Trailers, Game Trailers, and Demo downloads from day 1.
Wider selection of games(Due to one year advantage)
Live Arcade supplies more fun at reasonable prices
Compatible with many original Xbox games, but still not perfect, I would say they've got 80% of titles playing within 90% perfection. Unfortunately, many of them feel 'off' or 'wonky' still; I've stopped checking in on this feature, sticking to my original xbox for this.
Wii:
Standard Definition Graphics(Most users still aren't playing on HD screens, so this really shouldn't matter right now)
More 'fun' and 'immersive' oriented gameplay from the controller which makes you feel more involved in the game your playing
Online news/weather promised, along with NDS demo downloads and connectivity also promised; all of which is yet to be seen.
Limited selection of in-store titles, due to newness, this may not resolve right away, as Nintendo suffers severly from first-year-itis with every system.
Virtual Console titles still feel very limited, but are improving every week, with new titles surfacing for us frequently.
Plays GCN games with 95-99% perfection(There are *some* errors and glitches, but it is REMARKABLY compatible.)
Overall, it's a trade off, here's some more bottom line info:
Wider current game selection(In store, made for current system): 360 wins
Graphics: 360 wins
Control: Wii wins
Overall Immersion: Wii
Current Online support: 360 by far(But this may change when Nintendo gets their act together)
Online Game Downloads: 360(It has many many many more)
Demos, trailers, etc: 360(Wii has yet to get any)
Sound: 360, with true dolby surround
Multi-player: Online or off, the 360 wins, simply because it has far more titles right now.
What this means in one simple sentence:
Right now, the 360 has a bleeding edge over the competition in most areas, however, it is too soon to tell where this will go; since the Wii is so new, and still awaiting most of it's functionality.
....And yet, I've been playing my Wii more.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. December 2006 @ 08:39
|
|
SDMFer
Member
|
11. December 2006 @ 08:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
thanks for the info everyone. I guess at the end of the day, knowing how each system compare, i want to know if you have both, which one do you play more.
|
Senior Member
|
11. December 2006 @ 12:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
My Wii has been seeing more play time. But it's one year newer. It's still in the potential 'novelty' stage; so that may change. The 360 has a much larger library. But ultimately it depends on what you want to play. I have a feeling that after Christmas, my 360 will be back on top; usage-wise, it just has more to do.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
|
babyboy82
Newbie
|
11. December 2006 @ 19:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Everything they said is correct but mainly the games is whats going to make the real desicion. Here's why i own an Xbox360 and a Wii,
Wii - Nintendo's own franchise Zelda,Mario,Metroid Etc.
Xbox360- Halo 3, Fable, Forza, Microsoft Exclusive games.
it all comes down to Nintendo and Microsoft don't seem to bash each other like sony does to both of them. They both have some of the must have games Period.
|
|
Hydra
Member
|
12. December 2006 @ 01:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Would you guys suggest the 360 even if you dont have a high def tv??
Are the games that good online? GOW COD3 and others. Street fighter II on xbox live amongst others. I would get live of course (if i dont mod it)
Just asking because I'm not gonna be able to go high def for a little while longer but want to get my model 360 asap for drives sake
uhm...
|
Senior Member
|
12. December 2006 @ 10:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Very much so. Just because you don't get the *resolution* out of it, doesn't mean you don't get the vibrant details out of it. It's still incredibly pretty to look at.
And yes, the online play on those titles is superb.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
Senior Member
|
12. December 2006 @ 12:04 |
Link to this message
|
@handsom Quote:
Wii:
Standard Definition Graphics(Most users still aren't playing on HD screens, so this really shouldn't matter right now)
Do you honestly think that is the case? Look at the popularity of the 360 and PS3. Those purchases are literally driving a segment of the HDTV sales market. People are buying these sets like crazy. HD sets are the biggest sellers in the consumer electronics market. Furthermore, almost all t.v.'s currently sold are able to display some sort of high def image. Remember that in December 2005, the Senate passed a budget bill that calls for over-the-air television stations to cease their analog broadcasts by February 17, 2009. After that date, TVs and other gear with old-style NTSC tuners would be unable to receive over-the-air broadcasts. To make a console without the ABILITY to display higher resolutions just because "there aren't that many people out there with these sets" is very narrow visioned. With profitable lifespans of approximately 5 years, consoles should ensure some sort of "future-ready" capabilities, be it connectivity, graphical prowess, etc.
|
Senior Member
|
12. December 2006 @ 12:49 |
Link to this message
|
I do.
The Xbox had more than decent HD support for 720p years ago. Even the PS2 has had light support for it. They were far from standardizing it(Especially the PS2's below lackluster 1080i support in games like Gran Turismo 4 and Socom 3), they were supporting it, and they bragged about it, especially on core titles, for example, the two I mentioned above.
Now look at how many PS3s have really sold. Not for lack of interest, but for lack of supply. It's not remotely large enough to state that it's a 'driving force' behind rising sales. Even more so, most of the day one buyers(It's popularly speculated over 50%) were buying purely to resell on places like ebay. lol. People who buy a system at *launch* want to use it's high end features. I hate to say it, but most people buying 360's now are not 'hardcore' or 'high end'. They are average users who are settling because they couldn't get what they wanted; it doesn't matter if they couldn't afford what they really wanted, or if they couldn't find it. That's not the kind of user who is likely to buy a new tv for their new device.
Quote:
People are buying these sets like crazy.
HDTVs still aren't exactly flying off the shelves. Aside from game systems, not much really is; when it comes to consumer electronics right now. And right now, they should be. Why? Because the three (relatively, seeing as the 360 is a year old)new systems are out, and all but one of them are pushing high def. Two new media formats are available(HD DVD, and Blu Ray), both pushing different degrees of high def. All within a month of Christmas, when people buy the most big electronics... And they still aren't selling as much as you seem to think. They are closing in on the same level of sales that standard definition had a couple years ago(before hd really started taking a major market share), but they still haven't reached it quite yet.
Quote:
HD sets are the biggest sellers in the consumer electronics market.
No. They're the biggest profit. HDTVs have the highest profit margin in the consumer electronics market. That doesn't mean they're selling more units, it means they're making more money. Game systems (aside from Wii) are losing money for their manufacturers, when you buy the system. It is estimated that M$ will be able to break even by this upcoming spring/summer, and that's not even a strongly supported estimate, it's more optimistic. The PS3 is estimated for 2008 for profit to kick in. Really, game systems and tvs have always dominated the consumer electronics market. But seeing as this new wave is still in pre-profit margins; this scale is hardly fair; but a great way for tv manufacturers to push stock sales.
Moreover, even if HD does reach the same rate of sales standard was seeing before the market split; it still doesn't mean that the majority of users have them. Most American consumers(And we really are one of the biggest markets) replace their televisions every five to eight years. And about 2/3 of them actually go to a store to get their new ones. Many still replace from garage sales, newspapers, etc.
This means that even if everyone stops buying standard, it'll be at least a year or two before you can truly say that half of consumers have high definition equipment.
Quote:
Do you honestly think that is the case?
Yeah, I do.
You're looking at unusual consumers, the ones who decide that "It's time for a home entertainment upgrade" and I'm sorry, but if you think the majority of consumers are doing that, you're way off base. Our economy is just not in that good of shape.
"Over-the-air" broadcasts aside, cable boxes can always easily convert signal, and satellite isn't considered into that bill. No tv can recieve a High Def signal through what the government defines as an 'over-the-air broadcast', it's far too much bandwidth, and would cause interference problems. So, really all they're doing is basically banning an entire range of air broadcast signal. As a plus from their perspective, they're also freeing up more UDF channels for other purposes, such as air traffic control, military, and government communication.
***EDIT***
In retro-spect, as 2008 draws near, I'm sure many manufacturers will start to push the public (partial) knowledge of that bill widely, to scare consumers into getting new high def televisions "Or they might not get tv anymore!". lol. But from a cable company's perspective, they stand to lose a lot of money, if they refuse to send out a signal that will work for standard definition. They aren't going to just stop supporting all those customers. Although, this may finally push the general masses into equipping for the higher quality, albeit through exaggurated scare tactics.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. December 2006 @ 12:53
|
Senior Member
|
12. December 2006 @ 14:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Now look at how many PS3s have really sold. Not for lack of interest, but for lack of supply. It's not remotely large enough to state that it's a 'driving force' behind rising sales. Even more so, most of the day one buyers(It's popularly speculated over 50%) were buying purely to resell on places like ebay. lol.
There were roughly 15,000 ebay listing, out of roughly 400,00 ps3's sold. To prove the point that these units are driving HDTV sales look at compusa's thanksgiving ad. They only sold/bundled ps3's to people who bought HDTV's!
Quote:
People who buy a system at *launch* want to use it's high end features. I hate to say it, but most people buying 360's now are not 'hardcore' or 'high end'. They are average users who are settling because they couldn't get what they wanted; it doesn't matter if they couldn't afford what they really wanted, or if they couldn't find it. That's not the kind of user who is likely to buy a new tv for their new device.
People who buy items "at launch" are generally the "must have's". That is to say, those people shell out top dollar for the newest gadget and appreciate getting the maximum capability out of their products. That means that in the case of high end electronics (360, ps3, HDDVD/BR) those people are more likely than not to buy/and or have high resolution displays in their home.
Quote:
HDTVs still aren't exactly flying off the shelves. Aside from game systems, not much really is; when it comes to consumer electronics right now.
Quote:
"HD sets are the biggest sellers in the consumer electronics market"
No. They're the biggest profit. HDTVs have the highest profit margin in the consumer electronics market. That doesn't mean they're selling more units, it means they're making more money. Moreover, even if HD does reach the same rate of sales standard was seeing before the market split; it still doesn't mean that the majority of users have them
From:
http://www.ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/pres...il.asp?id=11192
According to recent data, approximately 30 percent of households are expected to tune in to digital broadcasts by the end of 2006, an increase of nearly 16 percentage points over the previous year. Further, sales data indicates that Americans are adopting digital televisions at an increasingly fast rate, with DTVs expected to outsell analog sets by 66 percent in 2006. The price of digital televisions continues to fall with the average retail price expected to be $819 in 2007, a $224 drop from 2006
Actually, the Consumer Electronics Association's new forecast for the electronics industry calls for a rise of 9.2 percent this year to just over $140 billion, and a 6.7 percent increase in 2007 to $149.3 billion. More specifically, sales of analog sets in 2007 is projected to decrease seven fold versus 2005 numbers while sales of LCD and plasma sets are projected to triple and double, respectively, during that same period.
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6374935.html
Sales of LCD, Plasma and microdisplay units are already rapidly increasing. Between 1st quarter 05 on 1st quarter 06 , sale of these types of displaysvnearly doubled in total units sold in one year's time
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6340915.html
Quote:
You're looking at unusual consumers, the ones who decide that "It's time for a home entertainment upgrade" and I'm sorry, but if you think the majority of consumers are doing that, you're way off base. Our economy is just not in that good of shape.
From:
http://www.ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/pres...il.asp?id=11154
Approximately one third of home theater owners plan to purchase a new component for their primary TV room or home theater system during the next year, according to research from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA®).
Total investment among home theater owners for the coming year is expected to be around $1,700 per household finds the CEA study Home Theater Opportunities. In addition, non-owner households plan to invest an average of $1,400 in home theater technologies during the same year. CEA classifies a home theater system as including at least a 34-inch display, a VCR or DVD player, a surround sound receiver/processor and at least four speakers
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. December 2006 @ 14:19
|
Senior Member
|
12. December 2006 @ 14:49 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
with DTVs expected to outsell analog sets by 66 percent in 2006
Expected. Curiously, this number has yet to be more accurately concluded. While the year still isn't over, I'd like you to show me current standings for the year that will support this actually happening.
Quote:
Sales of LCD, Plasma and microdisplay units are already rapidly increasing. Between 1st quarter 05 on 1st quarter 06 , sale of these types of displaysvnearly doubled in total units sold in one year's time
It's hard not to see an increase when going from an almost compeltely unknown product, to proving you're a venerable technology.
Quote:
Approximately one third of home theater owners plan to purchase a new component for their primary TV room or home theater system during the next year
One third, very impressive. Unfortunately, a component does not mean a television set. Many people choose to upgrade sound equipment first, I have seen many setups where the user chose a 5/6.1 before going HD, because they felt the improvement was much greater. Components are tvs, video players(Blu ray, HD, DVD players with or without upscaling, etc, etc), game systems, speakers, receivers, subwoofers, and probably a few more things I can't think of right now. 1700 does not necessarily mean a nice new television(Unfortunately, because I'm surprised HD really has taken this long). Besides 1/3 is not 'the majority' of consumers, it's less than half.\
Quote:
There were roughly 15,000 ebay listing
And that's one online source. Many people have posted in newspapers, craigslist, or other ways. I am honestly interested, where did you get that number from? I have a hard time believing it, and honestly question the reliability, because there are so many different listings, categories, and people who don't list 'correctly'.
Quote:
People who buy items "at launch" are generally the "must have's". That is to say, those people shell out top dollar for the newest gadget and appreciate getting the maximum capability out of their products. That means that in the case of high end electronics (360, ps3, HDDVD/BR) those people are more likely than not to buy/and or have high resolution displays in their home.
Like I said, people buying a 360 right now are NOT BUYING AT LAUNCH, launch was one year ago, and (for unknown reasons) many of those people did not upgrade(I honestly can't imagine why, I love my HD setup, and can't see why more of the fanatics didn't. But then again, I think it has to do with the fact that a large chunk of the recipients are children, not the adults who would buy a nice tv to go with it). That was one year ago. And 400,000 PS3 owners are hardly going to shift the entire US market.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
Senior Member
|
12. December 2006 @ 18:47 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
[quote]with DTVs expected to outsell analog sets by 66 percent in 2006
Quote:
Expected. Curiously, this number has yet to be more accurately concluded. While the year still isn't over, I'd like you to show me current standings for the year that will support this actually happening.
These are current standings. The news release is from 2006, since the year is not up actual figures cannot yet be determined .
From: http://www.twice.com/article/CA6374935.html
Sales of analog sets vs. digital televisions (x1,000 units); 2005, 20,428:11,369; 2006, 11,973:19,666; 2007(projected), 3,135:26,690
Quote:
Sales of LCD, Plasma and microdisplay units are already rapidly increasing. Between 1st quarter 05 on 1st quarter 06 , sale of these types of displaysvnearly doubled in total units sold in one year's time
Quote:
More specifically, sales of analog sets in 2007 is projected to decrease seven fold versus 2005 numbers while sales of LCD and plasma sets are projected to triple and double, respectively, during that same period.
Quote:
It's hard not to see an increase when going from an almost compeltely unknown product, to proving you're a venerable technology.
The point is that sales of these types of displays is increasing exponentially
Quote:
Approximately one third of home theater owners plan to purchase a new component for their primary TV room or home theater system during the next year
Quote:
One third, very impressive. Unfortunately, a component does not mean a television set. Many people choose to upgrade sound equipment first, I have seen many setups where the user chose a 5/6.1 before going HD, because they felt the improvement was much greater. Components are tvs, video players(Blu ray, HD, DVD players with or without upscaling, etc, etc), game systems, speakers, receivers, subwoofers, and probably a few more things I can't think of right now. 1700 does not necessarily mean a nice new television(Unfortunately, because I'm surprised HD really has taken this long). Besides 1/3 is not 'the majority' of consumers, it's less than half.\
A component is classified as including at least a 34-inch display, a VCR or DVD player, a surround sound receiver/processor and at least four speakers
If 1/3 is not significant enough, here is another reference from October 2006. 47% of households intend to buy HDTV's next year.
From:
http://www.physorg.com/news7662.html
The report, which includes data from Parks Associates' "Mobile Entertainment Platforms & Services" study, finds consumers are growing less skeptical about HDTV, which is creating a gradual increase in demand for high-definition products and services. Nearly 47% of TV households in the U.S. plan to buy an HDTV in the next twelve months. This increase would boost HDTV sales by 30% and HD video services by 38% by the end of 2006.
Your original quote was:
Quote:
You're looking at unusual consumers, the ones who decide that "It's time for a home entertainment upgrade" and I'm sorry, but if you think the majority of consumers are doing that, you're way off base. Our economy is just not in that good of shape.
33% or 1/3 of the consumer population certainly refutes the argument that it is an "unusual consumer" that is making these purchases. $1700 dollars for a home owner and $1400 for a non-home owner is no small stack to spend on HT components in an economy that is "not that good". Actually, 33% is a significant number of the comsumer population. That is only the current statistic, this year. Those same people are not necessarily going to upgrade year after year, rather, there may be a different 33% of the consumer population upgrading in subsequent years. Hence, the exponential growth of the market sector. This number is expected to increase in the coming years.
My original point that the viability of the argument that the wii does not need to support HD is still valid. HDTV sales and installation in homes is increasing exponentially. Due to this fact the Wii will be dated before the usual 5 year console lifespan.
Quote:
There were roughly 15,000 ebay listing
Quote:
And that's one online source. Many people have posted in newspapers, craigslist, or other ways. I am honestly interested, where did you get that number from? I have a hard time believing it, and honestly question the reliability, because there are so many different listings, categories, and people who don't list 'correctly'.
Quote:
Even more so, most of the day one buyers(It's popularly speculated over 50%) were buying purely to resell on places like ebay
According to ebay's own statistics release there were 14,675 ps3 consoles sold between Nov 17-24, with approximately 36,000 listings.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/1...1857&frame=true
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3155609
That's a far cry from the 400,000 shipped to the states and certainly less 50% of day one buyers.
I am giving you factual information and reputable references, not personal opinion. Do you have any factual statistics to support your bias?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. December 2006 @ 21:44
|
Newbie
|
13. December 2006 @ 03:23 |
Link to this message
|
400,000 PS3s? That was what Sony claimed they would have (they also orginally claimed they would sell 4 million by December, hahaha). Market experts (I will cite sources if needed) put that number closer to 200,000 or less. That is not anywhere close to driving HDTV sales. What's driving sales is lower prices as manufacters clear out old inventory to make room for new sets, especially those that can display 1080p.
Feel the Burn!
|
Senior Member
|
13. December 2006 @ 06:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Pixie67:
What's driving sales is lower prices as manufacters clear out old inventory to make room for new sets, especially those that can display 1080p.
I absolutely believe and agree with you. My original point was that these sets ARE selling. There are several factors that are adding to increased placement of HD sets in homes, the most likely of which is certainly lower prices, even newer sets are priced lower than comparable models were 1 year ago. Also, more support for HD programming, true HD (BR, HDDVD) components, and better technology (i.e. 1080p) are making HD sets more desirable. The gaming market as a whole is also HELPING to drive(A.K.A.:not solely responsible for, just one factor in) HDTV sales. Also, my other point was that: for the Wii not to support HD because people "just don't have these sets" was very narrow sighted. The market segment is growing everyday. If most people don't have HD sets today, what about in 2 or 3 years? You can see from my last post that HD sets are outselling analog sets this year by 3:2 and projected to outsell them by 9:1 in 2007. I have a Wii and an HD set. Having seen the crisp difference between 480p and 1080i television programming, I crave that same difference with my consoles.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. December 2006 @ 06:51
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
13. December 2006 @ 19:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Senior Member
|
13. December 2006 @ 20:33 |
Link to this message
|
Grow up! First, this is probably not the thread for this discussion. Second, Have you actually SEEN 1080i? There are several technical discussion threads as to why HD content is better than SD content. I compare network channels all the time with my cable box, specifically 480p vs 1080i on a 1080p display. Anything that comes in HD, criminal intent, law and order, medium, ANYTHING sports related, all look stunning in 1080i and only mediocre in 480p.
|
|
babyboy82
Newbie
|
13. December 2006 @ 23:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ChiknLitl:
Grow up! First, this is probably not the thread for this discussion. Second, Have you actually SEEN 1080i? There are several technical discussion threads as to why HD content is better than SD content. I compare network channels all the time with my cable box, specifically 480p vs 1080i on a 1080p display. Anything that comes in HD, criminal intent, law and order, medium, ANYTHING sports related, all look stunning in 1080i and only mediocre in 480p.
I have to agree with you here i own an Xbox 360 and i have an 32" and a 42" LCD's and when i set the 32 to 1080i and the 42 to 1080p i can barely see the difference even when watching Directv HD or NBA i have to say that 480p does not look all that great i rather have the settings on 1080i till now i have no need to believe that 1080p is a far superior than 1080i.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
13. December 2006 @ 23:47 |
Link to this message
|
But if it was the same why did Micrsoft release an update for their 360 to run at 1080p from the original 1080i??
P.S
If you are still using 1080i and saying its the same as 1080p then its time to get a new TV.
Progressive looks more crisp
1080i:
The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
480p:
The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second
That means that the picture will be more crisp because there are more frames P.S less frames more noticable changes.
ask anyone.
Did GT4 look crispier in 1080i or 480p?I say 480p MUCH MUCH better.
also 1080i is called poormans HD
|
Senior Member
|
14. December 2006 @ 06:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dazila:
But if it was the same why did Micrsoft release an update for their 360 to run at 1080p from the original 1080i??
P.S
If you are still using 1080i and saying its the same as 1080p then its time to get a new TV.
Progressive looks more crisp
There are several resources out there that will tell you that you cannot discern the difference between 1080i/30 and 1080p/30 pics, particularly difficult on todays fixed pixel HD displays.
[url=http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/08/14/hometheatermag-there-is-no-differnce-between-1080i-and-1080p-mo/][/url]
[url=http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/07/24/ask-hdbeat-how-can-i-tell-the-difference-between-1080i-and-1080/][/url]
The XBOX upgraded the resolution to 1080p because of the PS3 and HDDVD player specs. Even MS says there is no discernable difference in the resolutions. From:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/accessories/20061003-hddvd.htm
In other words, with a proper display, a 1080i picture will look identical to a 1080p picture when you begin with film material source like that from HD DVD.
Quote:
1080i:
The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
480p:
The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second
That means that the picture will be more crisp because there are more frames P.S less frames more noticable changes.
ask anyone.
Did GT4 look crispier in 1080i or 480p?I say 480p MUCH MUCH better.
also
If you are talking about pixel density...Ummm..Do the math: 1920x1080x30=6,220,8000; 704x480x60=2,027,520. That's 3x the pixel density per minute with a 1080i source. How can you argue with that?! Again I ask: have you actually watched ANYTHING in 1080i to compare it to 480p? If you want crisp, I can pick out every hair and skin pore in an actors face when watching HD in 1080i. That's a far cry from Progressive DVD!
Quote:
1080i is called poormans HD
From:http://ezinearticles.com/?1080p-HDTV-Sets-have-Started-to-Emerge---Should-You-Opt-for-One?&id=60743
from a pixel-count perspective, 1080i supports better spatial resolution than a 720p HDTV. In theory, 1080i supports a pixel count of over 2 million pixels as against the 0.92 million pixels supported by 720p HDTV
From:http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/oct05/articles/phtg/1080p.htm
The 1080i format is more widely supported by manufacturers and broadcasters;
BTW, 480p is not even close to HD, it's considered ED(enhanced definition). It's the difference between watching a Progressive scan DVD player and watching HDTV. If 1080i is the "poor man's HD", then why are there only two standards for HD broadcasts (720p and 1080i) and hardware makers phasing out 720p sets?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2006 @ 07:04
|
Senior Member
|
14. December 2006 @ 08:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
There are several resources out there that will tell you that you cannot discern the difference between 1080i/30 and 1080p/30 pics, particularly difficult on todays fixed pixel HD displays.
Now we're getting somewhere. I agree with that statement. HOWEVER, seen in actual motion, there is a very visible distinction between 1080i and 1080p. And I must strongly support dazila's statement of preferring 480p over 1080i. In motion, 1080i looks TERRIBLE compared to 480p.
Quote:
If you are talking about pixel density...Ummm..Do the math: 1920x1080x30=6,220,8000; 704x480x60=2,027,520. That's 3x the pixel density per minute with a 1080i source. How can you argue with that?! Again I ask: have you actually watched ANYTHING in 1080i to compare it to 480p? If you want crisp, I can pick out every hair and skin pore in an actors face when watching HD in 1080i. That's a far cry from Progressive DVD
I can say that I know dazila has watched 1080i source as well as 480p, I can't verify that he has seen 1080p, because he hasn't discussed it here. But believe me, he's been around the block with HD. And yes, you can see 'hairs' in 1080i, you can do the same in 720p or 480p. Just because it technically contains more pixels does not mean it truly looks better. It seems to me, from your constant numbers rattling; that you(look, I can use red too, does that make me smart like you?) don't really watch the two. Working in a video store for two years, before even getting my own HDTV, all the customers who had HD devices swore up and down that 1080i was terrible. They all hated it. And I must agree.
Quote:
BTW, 480p is not even close to HD, it's considered ED(enhanced definition). It's the difference between watching a Progressive scan DVD player and watching HDTV. If 1080i is the "poor man's HD", then why are there only two standards for HD broadcasts (720p and 1080i) and hardware makers phasing out 720p sets?
(I'm noticing no supporting link, you'll never find a true, FCC acredited link supporting this.) Believe me, you don't want to get into EDTV here... Boy howdy. 480p is not 'considered' to be ANYTHING(Unfortunately). The FCC acknowledges it solely as 'progressive scan', but not as standard definition, high definition, or any other definition. This has been thoroughly gone over in this forum. Go figure. You can find tons of websites that refer to 480p in many different ways, but you'll never hear the FCC(THE standard) refer to it in any way other than '480p' or 'Progressive Scan'.
Quote:
I am giving you factual information and reputable references, not personal opinion.
Obviosuly, that's not completely true.
As for 720p and 1080i being the HD broadcast standards... 1080p is too new, for broadcasters to justify that kind of signal it would have to be WIDELY used. People weren't really paying attention to image quality when Progressive scan(480p) really started; so like 1080p now, broadcasters had no reason to acknowledge it. By the time people were really paying attention to it, HD was on the rise, so it wouldn't make sense to go with 480p.
Quote:
from a pixel-count perspective, 1080i supports better spatial resolution than a 720p HDTV. In theory, 1080i supports a pixel count of over 2 million pixels as against the 0.92 million pixels supported by 720p HDTV
The reason that 480p looks better to users than 1080i, has nothing to do with the sheer number of pixels; if you think that's all there is to this argument, you are clearly out of your league here, no matter how many links you fill this board with. Progressive scan, even in cases as extreme as 480p vs 1080i, looks 'better' than interlaced; because there are no scanlines. Even if 1080i's resolution is technically using more, smaller pixels; there are 'gaps' between them, which makes it look less 'real' or 'smooth' to the human eye, progressive(Lower pixel resolution or not) fills those 'gaps' in with more lines of the image. This gives a stronger, more vibrant image than interlacing. I don't personally care if the actual resolution is higher, the Progressive method still looks more 'living' to me; and most users here seem to agree.
In *some* ways, this is similar to the reasoning that many pc gamers are opting to set their games for lower resolutions with strong anti-aliasing. It's a realization that a 'sharper' or 'higher resolution' image is not necessarily better than a more rounded, full, and natural looking image in a lower resolution.
As for the 200,000 units of PS3s, that is correct. Sony INTENDED to ship 400,000 originally, but numbers were found in actuallity, to be 200,000.
Quote:
My original point was that these sets ARE selling
Don't change your arguments:
Quote:
Those purchases are literally driving a segment of the HDTV sales market.
-Your first post in this thread.
As for 1080i being referred to as "Poor man's HD" I've heard this several times before. In the EARLY days of HD(Around when the xbox first launched), many sets only had 480p and 1080i, some even had the short-lived 720i*shudder*(I'm glad that didn't last more than a couple months, and to my knowledge it was never officially acknowledged by the FCC) they sold terribly, when most users were frustrated, ironically, by the fact that the 480p looked better to the human eye than 1080i. This led to a lot of frustration when many users could not understand why the 'higher number' they were investing so much in didn't look nicer.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2006 @ 08:16
|
Senior Member
|
14. December 2006 @ 09:02 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
It seems to me, from your constant numbers rattling; that you(look, I can use red too, does that make me smart like you?) don't really watch the two.... The reason that 480p looks better to users than 1080i, has nothing to do with the sheer number of pixels; if you think that's all there is to this argument, you are clearly out of your league here, no matter how many links you fill this board with. Progressive scan, even in cases as extreme as 480p vs 1080i, looks 'better' than interlaced;...
Listen, I absolutely watch both sources. My cable box outputs SD signals in 480p and HD signals in 1080i. I continuously compare, directly, network HD programs between the two formats. To say that 1080i does not look as good as 480p "in motion" is erroneous. Do you prefer to watch 480p DVD's vs 1080i HDTV? I don't. Even with an upconverting DVD player to 1080i the signal is still not as clear and sharp as original 1080i TV/movie content. For a DIRECT comparison of the two formats, please, please, please, see:
http://www.digitaltelevision.com/consumer/dtvcon1000c.shtml
[url=http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/02/27/1080i-vs-480p-HDTV-smackdown-on-lord-of-the-rings/][/url]
Quote:
...because there are no scanlines. Even if 1080i's resolution is technically using more, smaller pixels; there are 'gaps' between them, which makes it look less 'real' or 'smooth' to the human eye, progressive(Lower pixel resolution or not) fills those 'gaps' in with more lines of the image
Now I am sure you are behind the times, my friend. In order to see "scan lines" of any sort with a 1080i signal you would have to watch them through a CRT based set. You WIL NOT see scan lines with fixed pixel displays, i.e. LCD, DLP, LCoS, Plasma. The set automatically scales the image to it's native resolution.
480p IS Enhanced Definition T.V., as well as 576p, according to the Consumer Electronic Association (CEA):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDTV
Nintendo is using EDTV as the format for their seventh generation console Wii, while other developers are moving to HDTV
I use red to highlight inconsistencies in your arguments and links to try to support, educate and enlighten readers of these forums. I do not notice any support for your position/bias. I grow tired of debating this redundant topic. Good bye.
P.S.: It may help if you actually broadened your perspective, lessened your bias and read the posts thoroughly and fully, as well as the links to enhance your knowledge of this subject. There are many excellent resources @ AD, as well as wikipedia and google searches.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2006 @ 10:22
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
13 product reviews
|
14. December 2006 @ 09:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
I love the Wii and the 360. I got the Wii because of the gameplay. I got the 360 for the Graphics, and Gears of War (actually I won the 360, but still I was going to buy one anyways).
|
|
