A lot of RPTV Microdisplays (and other systems including CRT direct-view TVs) have profound overscan- where some sections of the full, native resolution is lost in the edges of the TV. This means that pixel 0,0 (for sake of example, upper left) might not be visible and the first visible pixel may be 10,10. This can be adjusted (electronically or phyiscally) on some, but not all, displays.
In these situations, 720 (or even 1080, depending on the device) isn't visible...
Set-Top DBS/Cable/Tuners may also have this issue.
on
When is 720p Not 720p?
·
· Score: 1
I have a Mits 52725 (based on the HD2+ DLP chip) and a Dish 811. What I have noticed is that setting the Dish 811 to output at 720P (the Mits "native" vertical resolution) the display is of significantly lower quality (including "jaggies") than setting the Dish 811 to output in 1080i and letting the Mits handle the scaling back to 720p.
I am not sure if this is because the Mits does proper scan converstion or due to some unreleated quality difference between the Mits and the Dish 811. What I can tell you is that when the OTA/Cable(QAM) stuff comes in at 720P (the Mits shows the format for the tuner-based stuff) it looks as good as the Dish 1080i, and vise-verse.
I recall reading that the Mits had Faroujda, but I am not sure where I read this.
XBox systems may have better hardware specs than GC and PS2 systesm, but EA titles on the XBox fail to include internet playability through XBox Live. It is interesting to see MS and EA duke it out about XBox Live; the arguements on both sides are interesting and compelling.
Just the same, I don't feel like shelling out my hard earned cash for EA's XBox titles for products that include internet play on the PS2 platform... especially since the XBox title is often similarly priced to the PS2 counterpart. To me, this is less gaming value for the same price.
I hope that MS and EA work out the problem. I also hope XBox Live users spend their gaming dollar wisely.
This can get ugly, but perhaps a little marketing pressure (boycott) could help- it will either drive EA from the XBox platform altogether (bad for both EA, Microsoft, and consumers) or EA and Microsoft will need work out a solution.
Until then, I can't buy into less gaming value for the same price.
I think you point out something interesting- that frame rates at specific resolutions and other metrics boil down to the fact that gaming performance is subjective. What I may consider a reasonable frame rate at a reasonable resolution for a fixed resolution flat-panel (such as the iMac's included display) may not be attainable on my configuration. Just the same, the performance you saw and the gaming experience you had on the G4 might have been acceptible to you. Have you gone back to gaming on the G4 since getting your dual G5?
My expectations are tainted by my experiences on more open hardware platforms such as the x86 provides. These games under windows perform significantly better on hardware costing half as much- that was my gist. It is a question of the econmomics of that performance.
Obviosuly, if your needs or desires bring you to a specific platform, you play the cards you are dealt.
I agree about the hardware requirements specific for halo... but at even $800- or even $1000, that's still half of what a 1g RAM, 17" iMac G4/800 cost in October 2002. A october 2002 $1000 PC clone can run Halo ok on modest settings, and still have some upgrade path and options...
It's good to see that we agree- that with choices, a clear platform winner seems to emerge- in computer (not console gaming), the Windows system reigns king for most people.
It's cheaper to buy an Xbox ($179) and Halo ($29) than to try to upgrade a mac via combinations of hardware and software to get Halo to run well.
Heck- it's cheaper to buy a PC clone at $400+ than to try to get Halo to run well on a Mac.
I have a 17" iMac G4/800 with 1GB of ram- this system will not upgrade "officially" much beyond this configuration. This system is 14 months old. It will not run any of the FPS PC ports from the past 2 years with an acceptible frame rate (including Wolfenstien, Jedi Knight II, and No One Lives For Ever.). I am not complaining about the inevitable obsolecence- it's the price curv between x86 hardware and Apple's.
There is clearly a lot of polish and pazaz that goes into Mac systems. There is some bleeding edge risks too. There is, even with budget macs, no way to compare their performacne to PC counterparts at half the price. x86 beats the Mac hands down in budget power.
While MacPlay and similar companies make bank on game-desperate mac owners trying to keep up with the PC market, it's disgusting to me. I bought NOLF for $49 when the PC version was $20 and the sequel, NOLF2, was $39 (and most retailers bundled the original in for free with NOLF2).
I am done investing in Mac games. I'd rather put the budget towards Linux x86 as a gaming platform where many development houses are doing parallel development on Win32 and Linux instead of porting. It may lack polish, but at least I'd get more from my hardware investment.
I don't condone the raping of intellectual property- but just the same, in NY state it's practically impossible to return software. At $50 a title, the gamble is too high on the Mac platform. I'd rather go without or choose a platform alternative.
I am fortunate in that I have an Xbox, Linux and Win32 hosts here to kick around with. I find that I do most of my gaming these days (as little as I can game these days) on the Xbox. I can rent titles before I buy them to see that I am getting what I expect. I just drop in the disk, fire up XBOX live, and embarass myself publicly. On Win32 or Linux I spent more time updating drivers and other code and tweaking the system than actually gaming. The console (xbox, ps2, whaterver) just smokes the Mac for most action games, and it's hard to say that the Mac has more variety than today's consoles for most game genres.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of RPTV Microdisplays (and other systems including CRT direct-view TVs) have profound overscan- where some sections of the full, native resolution is lost in the edges of the TV. This means that pixel 0,0 (for sake of example, upper left) might not be visible and the first visible pixel may be 10,10. This can be adjusted (electronically or phyiscally) on some, but not all, displays. In these situations, 720 (or even 1080, depending on the device) isn't visible...
I have a Mits 52725 (based on the HD2+ DLP chip) and a Dish 811. What I have noticed is that setting the Dish 811 to output at 720P (the Mits "native" vertical resolution) the display is of significantly lower quality (including "jaggies") than setting the Dish 811 to output in 1080i and letting the Mits handle the scaling back to 720p. I am not sure if this is because the Mits does proper scan converstion or due to some unreleated quality difference between the Mits and the Dish 811. What I can tell you is that when the OTA/Cable(QAM) stuff comes in at 720P (the Mits shows the format for the tuner-based stuff) it looks as good as the Dish 1080i, and vise-verse. I recall reading that the Mits had Faroujda, but I am not sure where I read this.
A Dr. Who remake without Daleks is like a Showgirls remake without nudity. Or with acting.
XBox systems may have better hardware specs than GC and PS2 systesm, but EA titles on the XBox fail to include internet playability through XBox Live. It is interesting to see MS and EA duke it out about XBox Live; the arguements on both sides are interesting and compelling.
Just the same, I don't feel like shelling out my hard earned cash for EA's XBox titles for products that include internet play on the PS2 platform... especially since the XBox title is often similarly priced to the PS2 counterpart. To me, this is less gaming value for the same price.
I hope that MS and EA work out the problem. I also hope XBox Live users spend their gaming dollar wisely.
This can get ugly, but perhaps a little marketing pressure (boycott) could help- it will either drive EA from the XBox platform altogether (bad for both EA, Microsoft, and consumers) or EA and Microsoft will need work out a solution.
Until then, I can't buy into less gaming value for the same price.
My expectations are tainted by my experiences on more open hardware platforms such as the x86 provides. These games under windows perform significantly better on hardware costing half as much- that was my gist. It is a question of the econmomics of that performance.
Obviosuly, if your needs or desires bring you to a specific platform, you play the cards you are dealt.
It's good to see that we agree- that with choices, a clear platform winner seems to emerge- in computer (not console gaming), the Windows system reigns king for most people.
Heck- it's cheaper to buy a PC clone at $400+ than to try to get Halo to run well on a Mac.
I have a 17" iMac G4/800 with 1GB of ram- this system will not upgrade "officially" much beyond this configuration. This system is 14 months old. It will not run any of the FPS PC ports from the past 2 years with an acceptible frame rate (including Wolfenstien, Jedi Knight II, and No One Lives For Ever.). I am not complaining about the inevitable obsolecence- it's the price curv between x86 hardware and Apple's.
There is clearly a lot of polish and pazaz that goes into Mac systems. There is some bleeding edge risks too. There is, even with budget macs, no way to compare their performacne to PC counterparts at half the price. x86 beats the Mac hands down in budget power.
While MacPlay and similar companies make bank on game-desperate mac owners trying to keep up with the PC market, it's disgusting to me. I bought NOLF for $49 when the PC version was $20 and the sequel, NOLF2, was $39 (and most retailers bundled the original in for free with NOLF2).
I am done investing in Mac games. I'd rather put the budget towards Linux x86 as a gaming platform where many development houses are doing parallel development on Win32 and Linux instead of porting. It may lack polish, but at least I'd get more from my hardware investment.
I don't condone the raping of intellectual property- but just the same, in NY state it's practically impossible to return software. At $50 a title, the gamble is too high on the Mac platform. I'd rather go without or choose a platform alternative.
I am fortunate in that I have an Xbox, Linux and Win32 hosts here to kick around with. I find that I do most of my gaming these days (as little as I can game these days) on the Xbox. I can rent titles before I buy them to see that I am getting what I expect. I just drop in the disk, fire up XBOX live, and embarass myself publicly. On Win32 or Linux I spent more time updating drivers and other code and tweaking the system than actually gaming. The console (xbox, ps2, whaterver) just smokes the Mac for most action games, and it's hard to say that the Mac has more variety than today's consoles for most game genres.