360 in HD

[eljay]

Having all sorts of different connectors and terms and resolutions and stuff is the sort of shit the TV makers should've figured out never to do back in the fucking eighties. Even the terms they invented to try to make it easy suck.

The main reason there are many different connectors is progress, they didn't all come out at once and manufacturers are obligated to support older connections so as not to alienate users with some older hardware.

[brkl]

I realise this seems obvious but it's also worth reminding yourself in that in conventional computer terms, 480p is roughly equivalent to 640x480, 720p to 1024x768, and 1080p to 1920x1200.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation. 720p is sharper than that and 1080p is much closer to 1600x1200.

[Thrik]

I don't follow.

The real resolution of 1080p is 1920×1080, and the real resolution of 720p is 1280x720. And for the sake of interest, 480p is 720x480.

1024x768 is actually sharper than 720p vertically; however, clearly 720p has greater horizontal resolution. 1080p is pretty close to 1920x1200, but has less vertical resolution.

Don't forget that HD sizes are always based on widescreen. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that 1600x1200 (4:3) is a closer match to 1080p (16:9) than 1920x1200 (16:10).

[brkl]

1920 * 1080 = 2 073 600

1920 * 1200 would be 2 304 000 and 1600 * 1200 is 1 920 000, hence closer.

1280 * 720 = 921 600

1024 * 768 is only 786 432.

I was just trying to point out you make the difference between 1080p and 720p seem bigger than it is because you're overestimating how sharp 1080p is and underestimating how sharp 720p is.

[Thrik]

I still disagree. I think by looking at it on a pixel-by-pixel basis you're doing it incorrectly as far as perception goes.

1920x1200 is 16:10 and 1080p is 16:9, with the horizontal resolution being identical. I would argue in laymnn's terms that 1920x1200 is basically the same resolution with a bit chopped off the top and bottom -- but this doesn't matter, because televisions have a bit 'chopped off the top and bottom' too to match. The overall quality to the eye is totally comparable, whereas 1600x1200 would need chopping off vertically and stretching a whole bunch sideways to look comparable.

The mathematics fail because I was comparing conventional non-widescreen computer resolutions that most people are familiar with. If you were to turn 1024x768 into a widescreen resolution you'd get a bigger and better picture than 720p, albeit only by a little.

[toblix]

I think we can all agree that the term "resolution" is not really applicable to these numbers unless the physical screen dimensions are also known, so that we get an actual number of pixels per area and pixel per horizontal and verical length unit and shit like that.

[brkl]

Well, first you compare to non-widescreen resolutions and then jump to a widescreen resolution. 1920x1200 is not a conventional resolution people are familiar with -- 1600x1200 is. You don't see how that's confusing?

[Thrik]

Actually I don't think 1600x1200 is a conventional resolution these days.

Once you get above about 1280x1024 with LCDs, it jumps to widescreen. I'm not aware of any LCD monitors that use 1600x1200, while essentially every LCD monitor of 24-27 inches uses 1920x1200.

[brkl]

Hunh, well I'd never heard of it.

Can we agree this has gone on long enough?

[Thrik]

An argument has never gone on for long enough on Idle Thumbs. ;

[brkl]

I disagree, and here's why:

[Mel]

I have only two things to add to this conversation:

1. You lost me very early on with 720's 1080's, etc. (I'm not asking for an explanation, just admitting my ignorance)

2. I kept thinking about the theatrical short I saw before they showed the main feature, National Treasure: Book of Secrets -

How to Hook Up Your Home Theater (it was very cool and Goofy had a TV that was far too large for his house )

[toblix]

Actually I don't think 1600x1200 is a conventional resolution these days.

Once you get above about 1280x1024 with LCDs, it jumps to widescreen. I'm not aware of any LCD monitors that use 1600x1200, while essentially every LCD monitor of 24-27 inches uses 1920x1200.

You mean you don't know of and haven't seen 1600x1200 LCD monitors right? Because they're very, very, very common, especially in the corporate business office world, where widescreen seems resisted somehow. But if you're talking about monitors at home you'de be more right, although there's plenty of 1600x1200 LCDs in people's homes as well. There was quite a long period of time in which a 1600x100 20" or 21" LCD was the most sensible thing to get.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Oh no! Yet another argument on Idle Thumbs I'm responsible for...

I have to stress to anyone considering buying a HDTV that although I'm still getting to grips with the entire thing myself, it is vitally important to check out the reviews of what you're buying because... and this is totally fucked up... although Thrik is right in saying that the real resolution of 1080p is 1920×1080 there is no standard set anywhere saying that a "Full HD" TV set has to have all these pixels, apparently.

Although there is a standard that says a Full HD TV has to have 1080 horizontal pixels, yes, there is nothing to say how many vertical pixels it should have. Same goes for "HD Ready" (720p) TV sets which should be 1280 x 720.

That's what I've read, so it pays to be aware of these potential pitfalls

I think that sort of explains my flatmate's TV: It runs at 1366x768, which means it's never really running in nice clean native resolution when watching a movie

PS: Is it a bad idea to try and get one these new HDMI equipped 360s from inducing a "ring of death" by wrapping my 360 in a blanket and leaving it running overnight?

[Thrik]

It isn't as long as you don't mind getting nothing but refurbished 360s that typically also fail within months, thus getting you into the infamous refurb cycle. ;

I know someone who's now on their eighth 360 after getting into the refurb cycle.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Ah. Maybe not then.

My friend is on his second. Thankfully they were at least apologetic and gave him two free games of his choice, though.

I'll avoid that route, methinks.

[Roderick]

I've just bought the TV I chose after careful deliberation: a 32" HD Ready Samsung (LE32 R82 , LCD, with good contrast ratio (8000:1) and other great features (zounds of connections for instance). It got good reviews on the internet and the price was great. There was a bargain at the local electronics boutique and I paid 600 Euros for it.

They gave me the wrong TV though, and when I returned to the shop and they went looking for the real one, it was out of stock. Now I have to wait until next week before I can play Bioshock on the Xbox 360 I'll buy tomorrow on my brandnew spiffy 'No Union' Samsung!

[Roderick]

And today, I also bought my Xbox 360! Premium edition, HDMI slot bearing. It came with Viva Pinata and Forza 2, but I don't care about both and they were disappointingly packaged in just a flimsy white envelope.

The biggest victory however is that I peered inside with a flashlight and I believe I have the 65nm chips on the motherboard. That means this unit has a lot better a chance to remain RRoD-free. Just to be sure, I'm keeping the thing horizontally and won't stack anything against or on top of it.

A huge disappointment was that the actual HDMI cable wasn't in the package, and Microsoft is willing to sell it to me for the astounding price of 50 Euros. Methinks I'll get a third party cable.

[Noyb]

Mine just Red Ring of Deathed. Froze after attempting to navigate Undertow's title screen, and never recovered, although I guess that's just the dying gasps of a launch console and not the actual cause. Time to submit myself to what hopefully isn't an endless cycle of repairs. And if they do replace the console, then the DRM means that I need to be online to access any previously purchased arcade games or DLC.

[toblix]

Just to be sure, I'm keeping the thing horizontally and won't stack anything against or on top of it.

So, I've been trying to find a conclusive and definitive source of information about the best position for the Xbox 360, with regards to disc reading a cooling. What, did you find one?

[Roderick]

No, just common sense. There's a grid on the bottom if you put it up vertically (near the motherboard, where all the problems occur). I'd rather have that out in the open instead of almost sealed with only a sliver of room.

As for the scratched discs, wasn't that caused by faulty stabilizers in the drive? I have no idea what would be the better position for it, though it's a problem I associate with only the earliest releases of the system.

[toblix]

No, just common sense.

You cheeky bastard. Anyway, is there a documented difference in cooling performace between the two positions?