ps3>360?

[CivicEX08]

Originally Posted by sinafl

can anyone back up this claim?

You can wait for another person to back me up, but I wouldn't lie about this. I prefer the XBOX 360 over the PS3 but it's obvious HDMI doesn't do anything compared to Component which is analog. The reason for this is Microsoft added HDMI to make it all digital, but the console was NEVER made to take advantage of the signal fully. I have used HDMI on XBOX 360 for a year now and I just switched back to component cables. There is no difference at all. [There may be a difference if it's in 1080p signal if the game supports it, but even than the XBOX doesn't handle it while PS3 does].

And I'm not making judgments on a bad HDTV. I have a 32" Sony Bravia XBR LCD. Pretty much top of the line stuff.

[CivicEX08]

Originally Posted by Bubble Gum Jr.

Sony lost alot of credibility from their video products when they moved all their production to Mexico. This is true for all of their lines even their top end XBR line. I pretty much avoid Sony all together, their audio sucks, their cameras blow, tv's are barely surviving because the Koreans are stealing a huge chunk of their market. PS2 and Bluray sales will ensure that they have the financial backing to survive anything that arises in the future.

I don't support Sony outsourcing to Mexico, but I'll say the Bravia series is one of the best televisions made. I've checked out many of them and none of them compared to the quality. Plus, I've never had an issue with Sony' quality so I won't be switching anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Bandit03

as long as you take care of the system and leave it in an open area there is no issue

Uh... Just no.

My XBOX 360 has broken several times. However, only one of them was from the 3RLOD. I have a friend who went through 7 XBOX 360 consoles which all broke due to the RLOD. And my other friend went through 4 already. And there are a few other friends who had their systems die.

And not one of them had it poorly setup. In fact, they were in the open and had air from all sides. It's just crappy quality by Microsoft. All of us take care of our consoles like their little babies.

[K20Redline]

Originally Posted by Bubble Gum Jr.

Sony lost alot of credibility from their video products when they moved all their production to Mexico. This is true for all of their lines even their top end XBR line. I pretty much avoid Sony all together, their audio sucks, their cameras blow, tv's are barely surviving because the Koreans are stealing a huge chunk of their market. PS2 and Bluray sales will ensure that they have the financial backing to survive anything that arises in the future.

WTF are you talking about I rather have my shieet made in Mexico then China anyway! suck it you can be a sony hater but sony started this shiieet Im not no sony fanboy but they started almost everything that is what it is today like the walkman, CD dude the CD bro you if it wasent for sony you woulden be doing CDs right now I dont understand why betamax dident win over VH1 but thats anotherthing to be debated but with blue Ray they showed the world and PS if it wasent for the PS console gaming wouldent be a fight the way it is for supremacy!

[CivicEX08]

Originally Posted by K20Redline

WTF are you talking about I rather have my shieet made in Mexico then China anyway! suck it you can be a sony hater but sony started this shiieet Im not no sony fanboy but they started almost everything that is what it is today like the walkman, CD dude the CD bro you if it wasent for sony you woulden be doing CDs right now I dont understand why betamax dident win over VH1 but thats anotherthing to be debated but with blue Ray they showed the world and PS if it wasent for the PS console gaming wouldent be a fight the way it is for supremacy!

You mean VHS. If you didn't already know, VH1 is a music channel. [Just kidding]

And I'm no expert on Betamax, but I heard it has a lot to do with them being anti-porn. But than again, I can be 100% incorrect!

[e60.deluxe]

Originally Posted by Bubble Gum Jr.

Sony lost alot of credibility from their video products when they moved all their production to Mexico. This is true for all of their lines even their top end XBR line. I pretty much avoid Sony all together, their audio sucks, their cameras blow, tv's are barely surviving because the Koreans are stealing a huge chunk of their market. PS2 and Bluray sales will ensure that they have the financial backing to survive anything that arises in the future.

go to circuit city and look at the back of all the TVs of any brand. youre gonna see Made in Mexico on the back of 75% of them, and then China or Indonesia on the remaining 25%.

Sony stuff is pretty damn reliable. im not a fan of the actual product on alot, (except for PS3 and Bravia) but its made very well. want to know a company who makes everything in Mexico that has gone down the tubes? Panasonic.

oh, BTW, the PS3 is made in Japan however. i doubt the 360 is made in its home country (USA). probably China or Mexico.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by K20Redline

Care to explain?

The 360 has supported 1080p for about 1.5 years now (the initial release didn't). True most 360 games aren't made native in 1080p, but it still supports it.

[mdenning]

Originally Posted by CivicEX08

You can wait for another person to back me up, but I wouldn't lie about this. I prefer the XBOX 360 over the PS3 but it's obvious HDMI doesn't do anything compared to Component which is analog. The reason for this is Microsoft added HDMI to make it all digital, but the console was NEVER made to take advantage of the signal fully. I have used HDMI on XBOX 360 for a year now and I just switched back to component cables. There is no difference at all. [There may be a difference if it's in 1080p signal if the game supports it, but even than the XBOX doesn't handle it while PS3 does].

And I'm not making judgments on a bad HDTV. I have a 32" Sony Bravia XBR LCD. Pretty much top of the line stuff.

Do you even know what 1080i/p is?

Component video (analog, yes) and HDMI (digital) output the exact same image. They both do 1080p, they both are HD. The ONLY difference is HDMI carries audio as well, and has the ability to "authenticate" with equipment, which MAY be required to view 1080p content in the future.

THAT is why there is no improvement from Component and HDMI on the 360. The 360 has been outputting 1080p content since its release, using Component cables. They added HDMI to 1, have a digital signal and 2, to make the console compatable for when HDMI is required for outputting a 1080p signal.

Please go learn about what you're talking about, then come back and chat.

PS - GTA4 on the PS3 is not 720p as it is on the 360, if you want to argue about one not being full HD.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by mdenning

Do you even know what 1080i/p is?

Component video (analog, yes) and HDMI (digital) output the exact same image. They both do 1080p, they both are HD. The ONLY difference is HDMI carries audio as well, and has the ability to "authenticate" with equipment, which MAY be required to view 1080p content in the future.

THAT is why there is no improvement from Component and HDMI on the 360. The 360 has been outputting 1080p content since its release, using Component cables. They added HDMI to 1, have a digital signal and 2, to make the console compatable for when HDMI is required for outputting a 1080p signal.

Please go learn about what you're talking about, then come back and chat.

PS - GTA4 on the PS3 is not 720p as it is on the 360, if you want to argue about one not being full HD.

Although you are correct with component being able to support 1080p, it does not on the xbox360. You need either VGA or HDMI on the 360 to do 1080p.

[civsnake]

Originally Posted by skiddy

Although you are correct with component being able to support 1080p, it does not on the xbox360. You need either VGA or HDMI on the 360 to do 1080p.

This is correct.

[mdenning]

False. Sort of. An Xbox Update added 1080p support for Component output.

[civsnake]

Originally Posted by mdenning

False. Sort of. An Xbox Update added 1080p support for Component output.

I had not heard this. It doesn't really matter, as my TV doesn't support 1080p, but still, good to know if I ever upgrade.

[mdenning]

Yep, happened back in Nov '06 when they released the HD-DVD add-on.

Xbox.com | Xbox News - November 2006 Update Features List

New Features
* HD 1080p video mode support over VGA and component cables.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by mdenning

Yep, happened back in Nov '06 when they released the HD-DVD add-on.

Xbox.com | Xbox News - November 2006 Update Features List

New Features
* HD 1080p video mode support over VGA and component cables.

Microsoft forgot to put in some small print. HDCP.

[mdenning]

HDCP, as far as I know, has yet to be enabled on any 1080p content. Thus, Component cables (even on the 360) are able to play 1080p content with no problem.

However once HDCP starts being enabled, you are correct that only HDMI will support 1080p content, even on the 360.

[CivicEX08]

Originally Posted by mdenning

Do you even know what 1080i/p is?

Component video (analog, yes) and HDMI (digital) output the exact same image. They both do 1080p, they both are HD. The ONLY difference is HDMI carries audio as well, and has the ability to "authenticate" with equipment, which MAY be required to view 1080p content in the future.

THAT is why there is no improvement from Component and HDMI on the 360. The 360 has been outputting 1080p content since its release, using Component cables. They added HDMI to 1, have a digital signal and 2, to make the console compatable for when HDMI is required for outputting a 1080p signal.

Please go learn about what you're talking about, then come back and chat.

PS - GTA4 on the PS3 is not 720p as it is on the 360, if you want to argue about one not being full HD.

All I'm saying is HDMI is a better input type than component. However, you need to look at the difference. On the PS3, the upgrade from component to HDMI is huge. You can tell the difference right of way. However, the HDMI input on the XBOX 360 doesn't look any better than the component.

And I'm not arguing about Grand Theft Auto. I think the game is complete crap anyways. And don't tell me that I don't know shit about this stuff. Just like I told you, the difference between HDMI and component should be clearly visible. If you need any proof of this, try the PS3 sometime. Microsoft' HDMI input is nothing short of an extra input type and nothing more. And I don't even recall saying the XBOX 360 can't display 1080p on component cables considering my friend does it on his HDTV. However, that doesn't mean both inputs should display the same quality.

By the way, I didn't mean the XBOX 360 doesn't do 1080p. All I meant is the XBOX 360 doesn't handle HDMI [1080p] the way it should. 1080p on HDMI should look superior to that of component. But on the XBOX 360, it doesn't make a difference. Again, if you don't believe me, go find out for yourself and learn from experience rather than fighting with me about it.

Digital > Analog = Thus HDMI > Component

[e60.deluxe]

Ok time for some technical information:

in absolute terms, digital is not better than analog for video. for one, a VGA cable can carry more information than a standard digital signal. 2048x1536@75Hz vs. 1920x1020 @60hz.

dual link digital cables which essential put 2 digital signals into 1 cable can use a resolution of 2560x1600@60Hz. so 2 digital signals in 1 cable amounts to about 4% more information than the highest analog signal through 1 cable.

now when we look at LCD type displays, which operate in digital, digital is beneficial because of the display's timing can be synced. if you stick your nose in a computer monitor thats connected via VGA and then compare that to digital, when looking at certain patterns you can see that the picture gets slightly distorted and squiggly looking, because it is out of phase. the timing must be set manually when using VGA to get rid of this. it is done automatically in Digital. but again, this is when looking at certain patterns, and sticking your nose in the screen.

if we look at VGA to a CRT, this problems will not be there, ever.

now, if you want the best image quality availible, that is still a direct View CRT. yes they are heavy, and huge, and dont get very big, but they STILL have the best image quality out there. now because they are analog it can be said that Analog > Digital.

funny thing, there is a new type of TV coming thats based on CRT technology, but slightly different and they are able to make the TVs larger, and flat and light, just like an LCD. it will be interesting to see how VGA/Component works on them, since they are nativley analog, but everything wil be forced to digital by then..

[CivicEX08]

Originally Posted by e60.deluxe

Ok time for some technical information:

in absolute terms, digital is not better than analog for video. for one, a VGA cable can carry more information than a standard digital signal. 2048x1536@75Hz vs. 1920x1020 @60hz.

dual link digital cables which essential put 2 digital signals into 1 cable can use a resolution of 2560x1600@60Hz. so 2 digital signals in 1 cable amounts to about 4% more information than the highest analog signal through 1 cable.

now when we look at LCD type displays, which operate in digital, digital is beneficial because of the display's timing can be synced. if you stick your nose in a computer monitor thats connected via VGA and then compare that to digital, when looking at certain patterns you can see that the picture gets slightly distorted and squiggly looking, because it is out of phase. the timing must be set manually when using VGA to get rid of this. it is done automatically in Digital. but again, this is when looking at certain patterns, and sticking your nose in the screen.

if we look at VGA to a CRT, this problems will not be there, ever.

And that's probably why digital is way better for me. I have a Sony Bravia XBR LCD so it would work correctly.

If it's not an LCD, than I have no idea how to explain why HDMI would be better. But I will say that it's the best picture I've ever seen. :)

[mdenning]

You're correct. HDMI and Component on the 360 are practically an identical image. Guess why? Because both are sending the same output. This is why you do not see a difference with Component and HDMI on the 360.

Both, using proper content, are sending a 1080p signal. 1080p is 1080p. Component or HDMI. From what I know, and I'll verify this with a friend when he gets to work, the PS3 outputs a different signal when using Component vs HDMI, for the sole reason they want to promote HDMI.

I have found out for myself, and I have it from a VERY reliable source that HDMI and Component on the 360 are BOTH an identical output (1080p with proper content, which will look the same), aside from the HDCP handshake with HDMI.

[CivicEX08]

Originally Posted by mdenning

You're correct. HDMI and Component on the 360 are practically an identical image. Guess why? Because both are sending the same output. This is why you do not see a difference with Component and HDMI on the 360.

Both, using proper content, are sending a 1080p signal. 1080p is 1080p. Component or HDMI. From what I know, and I'll verify this with a friend when he gets to work, the PS3 outputs a different signal when using Component vs HDMI, for the sole reason they want to promote HDMI.

I have found out for myself, and I have it from a VERY reliable source that HDMI and Component on the 360 are BOTH an identical output (1080p with proper content, which will look the same), aside from the HDCP handshake with HDMI.

That's all I've been trying to say. Glad we're on the same page.

[mdenning]

Uh...

"All I'm saying is HDMI is a better input type than component.". You said this, correct?

I'm telling you that sentence is false. But thank you for finally agreeing with that.