Does High Definition really work?

[CY_Definitive]

Before I was able to purchase any of the new (HD) consoles, I found myself fantasizing about how graphically impressive games on, you know, the 360 and PS3 would look.

When I finally got to try OUT both systems, I was impressed.

HOWEVER!

Call me old fashioned, but I was under the impression that graphically, the systems would be dependent on Component AV and HDMI to display on 1080i/p TV's and such BECAUSE the graphical power of the consoles made such a system a necessity.

However, after finally purchasing one of the consoles (360), buying a TV with 1080i, and an HDMI cable, playing the games, switching to Component AV cable----

Stop, right there.

I noticed that the GRAPHICS on screen didn't change. No. The brightness and color depth of the screen changed. Pixellation was still there (in some spots), along with no change in game engine display (that I could see).

That made me wonder: was it really a necessity to play the game in 1080i HD? It LOOKED THE SAME IN 480i COMPONENT AV! Just...less bright?

Confused, I tested this on my PS2.

For those who don't know, Gran Turismo 4 (NTSC) has the option to output in 1080i using COMPONENT AV. I thought "ok, let's try this".

I switch it, and start to play. Whats the first thing I notice?

The game looks EXACTLY the same. EXCEPT for a change in BRIGHTNESS and color depth. Everything looked more VIBRANT. Nothing changed graphically!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, how come video game companies just don't focus on graphical improvement and nothing else? I mean, theoretically, if we can go from 8 bit to 16 bit to 32 bit to 64 bit to 128 bit to...where are we at now, 256 bit...then why not just do that?

It looks the same. Honestly. I can see how HD works for TV and movies, but video gaming? Really?

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

WELL that's quite INTERESTING. Perhaps IF you take THIS into account, HD doesn't really make MUCH of a DIFFERENCE.

 

[jamesworkshop]

HD only applies to the resolution but decent graphics is far more dependant on post-processing effects, colour accuracy is far more important than resolution

Also remeber those consoles struggle with actual HD resolutions so the Tv normally has to upscale them

 

[CY_Definitive]

HD only applies to the resolution but decent graphics is far more dependant on post-processing effects, colour accuracy is far more important than resolution

Also remeber those consoles struggle with actual HD resolutions so the Tv normally has to upscale them

Right, but was HD video gaming marketed as a graphical improvement (along the lines of N64 graphics upgrading to GameCube graphics) or just HD being a different medium to present those graphics?

You never hear anyone mentioning how many "bits" a game console can produce anymore, but I'm not sure if its because of what HD has done or if people generally aren't taken to care about that. Arguably Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft don't mention what the "bit" capabilities of their consoles are as much as they USED to (excluding Nintendo, for the simple fact it has no HD).

So does that mean people really don't care about it anymore, or is it just we assume its graphically good if it says HD?

 

[gigastrike]

I noticed a difference. Try looking at small text on both.

 

[Hazy]

On normal TV and the Wii, everything looks so blurry and dated.

Super Mario Galaxy actually made me forget that I was playing in Standard Def.
..Twas a sad day indeed.

 

[Baby Tea]

I have my 360 on my 40" LCD TV running at 1080P.
It looks freaking fantastic.

I had my friend bring over his Wii so I could try Super Smash Bros Brawl.
We plugged in the HD cables...and it was a pixel-filled mess.

And I'm saying that because the Wii can't do more then 480p (Is that right? Or is it 480i?).

If I switch my 360 to 480P, I notice the difference. Big time.
There is a drastic difference. It certainly doesn't look the same.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

WELL that's quite INTERESTING. Perhaps IF you take THIS into account, HD doesn't really make MUCH of a DIFFERENCE.

I agree WITH Vanguard_Ex's statement. I have never really THOUGHT that HD made THAT much of a difference either. I actually PLAY my PlaySTATION in STANDARD definition as I FIND that HIGH DEFINITION is a RATHER expensive type of TELEVISION to BUY.

THANK you. It's NICE to see SOME recognition for POSTS.

 

[jamesworkshop]

HD only applies to the resolution but decent graphics is far more dependant on post-processing effects, colour accuracy is far more important than resolution

Also remeber those consoles struggle with actual HD resolutions so the Tv normally has to upscale them

Right, but was HD video gaming marketed as a graphical improvement (along the lines of N64 graphics upgrading to GameCube graphics) or just HD being a different medium to present those graphics?

You never hear anyone mentioning how many "bits" a game console can produce anymore, but I'm not sure if its because of what HD has done or if people generally aren't taken to care about that. Arguably Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft don't mention what the "bit" capabilities of their consoles are as much as they USED to (excluding Nintendo, for the simple fact it has no HD).

So does that mean people really don't care about it anymore, or is it just we assume its graphically good if it says HD?

It is an improvment but the resolution is only just a factor in graphical fidelity, PS3 games are far better than PS2.
Bits refer to the Word-lenght of the GPU

Seventh Generation really 256-bit??
I think the bit classification of video game systems starting with this generation should not be placed on here. The last video game systems classified by their companies with bits were the 128-bit Sega Dreamcast and PlayStation 2. These new seventh generation consoles (XBox 360, Playstation 3, and Nintendo Wii) don't actually contain 256-bit processors. Even the most powerful consumer home PC computer systems either contain 32-bit or 64-bit processors.--Mark Nguyen 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no such thing as a 256-bit processing unit (other than a general idea or hypothetical design). Stick with generations, because processor bits are becoming more level and are staying the same, essentially. --CanesOL79 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think consoles can also be classified according to the word length of th GPU,not only by CPU.
Remember TurboGrafx 16 had an 8-bit CPU,but 16-bit GPU. Today's 7-th gen consoles are all 256-bit,according to the the GPU wordlengths. But,then you have the XBOX with its' 32-bit CPU and 256-bit GPU. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.185.5 (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I believe the seventh generation consoles XBOX 360, Wii, PlayStation 3 could be the 256-bit era when you look at it. Okay the CPU in the XBOX 360 and Wii are 64-Bit while the PlayStation 3's Cell is 128-bit, but the graphics card in all three consoles has an internal 256-bit engine and the graphics is really what counts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talkedicated_video_game_consoles#Seventh_Generation_really_256-bit.3F.3F

--------------
Bits is basically marketing babble all current gen use 256bit GPU's and yet have far different graphical capabilities

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

I noticed a difference. Try looking at small text on both.

Blue Dragon is a right bastard for small text.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

You do know that all of the PS3/360 games only run at 720p, right? Sure the dashboard/menus and even movies will play at 1080, but games won't.

 

[Slash Dementia]

WELL that's quite INTERESTING. Perhaps IF you take THIS into account, HD doesn't really make MUCH of a DIFFERENCE.

I agree WITH Vanguard_Ex's statement. I have never really THOUGHT that HD made THAT much of a difference either. I actually PLAY my PlaySTATION in STANDARD definition as I FIND that HIGH DEFINITION is a RATHER expensive type of TELEVISION to BUY.

THANK you. It's NICE to see SOME recognition for POSTS.

This was hilarious to read for some reason. I'm just easily entertained.

There is a difference and I've seen it really clearly. HDTVs just make it really crisp and just way better (especially for those tiny words that you can't see on SDTVs). The game graphics aren't supposed to change, it just makes it a lot better to look at--just like digital TV makes TV more clear (no more TV antennas).

 

[socialtangent]

There's a pretty big difference when you play in 1080p on the 360 or PS3. TF2 looks absolutely amazing in 1080p. And when playing games like Call of Duty, the extra resolution actually helps in gameplay. It's much easier to spot players running off in the distance or in dense vegitation and debris.

 

[ElTigreSantiago]

If you don't notice any change, you're playing on a crappy TV. If went from standard to 1080p and there was so much of a change it's like I wasn't playing the same game.

 

[demmalition1]

WHY the RANDOM capitalized WORDS?

It's CALLED the Chris FARLEY effect, IT makes NORMAL phrases SEEM funnier.


O.T.: H.D. is a huge difference for me. I have a 60ish plasma Fujitsu, and it's miles better than a standard-def t.v. (also, no burn in despite warnings, been 7 years now).

 

[The_Echo]

I upgraded from running my PS3 at standard definition to 1080i, and I could see a difference. However, the differences were slight. It really just made everything look sharper, and I think that's what the point of High Definition was.

 

[Wofiel]

Mmkay, first order of notice: 1080i ≠ 1080p
Second: There is a difference, even between 480p and 720p.

Do not under any circumstance try to play games such as Dead Rising or Prototype on anything less than 720p. In Dead Rising, text is unreadable and in Prototype the minimap is just a mess when not in HD.

Going from my ~30" Standard Def CRT to a 15" LCD at 720p, the difference is unbelievable, everything is much clearer.