There have been a few questions relating to the scaling issues on PS3 games, such as the one below:
“Could you try and get info from Sony about the solution to the scaling issues on PS3 games? It seems a lot of people on the net are having trouble with their PS3 due to their TVs being only capable of 480i, 480p, and 1080i.”
“Since the PS3 can’t scale games to a certain resolution, these people can’t enjoy native 720p games being scaled to their TV’s resolution, and instead the PS3 boots the game into 480p. If you could get any info on how this is going to be fixed, or when, that would be greatly appreciated.
Here’s what PlayStation had to say in response:
720p is a higher resolution than 1080i. However, there are limited TVs that can output 1080i rather than 720p, and the HD Ready logo in Europe guarantees the TV is capable of 1080i and 720p
Resolution quality from top to bottom is:
1080p
720p
1080i
576p (480p for the US)
576i (480i for the US)
Therefore, if you tell the PS3 that you can’t do 1080i, the system has to drop to the standard definition resolution of 480p, because the PS3 won’t scale the Blu-ray video output up, and the source Blu-ray material will be at 1080 for high definition.
However, as the PS3 firmware can be updated, this is something that could be included in a later revision and unlike the recent 360 update, the PS3 can run true 1080p, as HDMI is standard on both 20 & 60gb models. What resolution the game is capable of is up to the game developers - all the way up to 1080p.
I am really surprised at the press this issue has caused, there are very very few HDTVs that only support 1080i.
Comment by Ben Furneaux — Nov 28, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
The problem lies with the TV not being able to display the widely accepted standard of 720p. Why is everyone blaming the PS3? I can’t find a single article that claims upscaling was promised..
I also want to correct the statement that you need HDMI in order to use 1080p. You don’t. 1080p can go over component just fine.
Comment by P5ycH0 — Nov 28, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
People just like to rant… Next week they’ll give the PS3 bad press for the cadmium finish they used on the printed circuit boards…
However, if the output data for resolution goes like this:
720p>1080i>480p
If the game is set to run at 720p, and the TV doesn’t support it, there’s no reason why it (technically) can’t do 1080i. So people stuck with this issue have somewhat of an argument in demanding a fix. Cheers.
Comment by Kamesen — Nov 28, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
I am affected by this but not because my TV is 1080i-only. I have a 1st gen Sony SXRD that is 1080p but only inputs 1080i. I run my PS3 at 720p because of the preset pecking order. Ideally I should be able to set 1080i as default (which would be deinterlaced to 1080p by my set) with 720p as a fallback. Right now, if I set my set to output 1080i, games that only support 720p drop all the way to 480p even though my set supports 720p. Sony, please address this.
Comment by Adrian Chapman — Nov 28, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
Their response isn’t entirely accurate. The HD Ready logo in Europe means it can display at at least 1280×720, below the 1080i resolution of 1920×1080.
Also, how can 720p be a higher resolution than 1080i? I thought the number represents the width of the display in pixels? Meaning 1080i is a higher resolution.
Comment by Soong — Nov 28, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
I personally would like the PS3 to scale Blu-ray movies down to 720p instead of displaying them at 1080i. I really hope they release a firmware update to fix that.
Comment by Uncanny — Nov 28, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
This reminds me of Lost in Translation…
People can check this resource to understand what PlayStation is saying:
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm
I would like to say PlayStation needs to do a lot more communication on these matters.
Right now, we have the feeling of receiving tidbits of information from alien creatures living in a glass tower on the moon.
Comment by SolidSlug — Nov 28, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
I’m with Ben. Gamers need to get back to a sense of fun and adventure as it seems most have turned into a bunch of bitches
Comment by Belfast Steps — Nov 28, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Aint that the truth. Gaming was a much more relaxing affair when the only choice you had was composite or SCART.
Comment by Soong — Nov 28, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
S-Video ruined it for everyone!
Comment by Neil — Nov 28, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
Nice attempt at a dodge. 1080I is a higher resolution than 720p and the 360 supported this on it’s launch day. It’s inexcusable that Sony overlooked a significant share of HDTV’s with this foot shot. Sony delayed the launch by 6 months and the console still feels unfinished.
Also, you don’t need HDMI to output in 1080P. This Sony PR firm (Three Speech) is either intentionally lying or is disturbingly incompetent.
Comment by Grognard — Nov 28, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
For reference, here’s a link to the impartial website c/net explaining resolutions: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html
Comment by Grognard — Nov 28, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
For a good explanation of HD standards I reccommend an episode of Major Nelson’s podcast that covers all that, please don’t throw golf balls at me. I’m sure the soon to come ThreeSpeech podcast will do a much better HD episode!
Comment by Ben Furneaux — Nov 28, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
@Soong Resolution is a misleading term here. Actually things are more complicated you have to take framerates and progressive/interlaced modes into account. basically a signal with 1080i needs a lower bandwidth to as two images of 540 lines will be generated (interlaced). A 720p progressive signal at the same time has a higher resolution than 1080i. I no that this sounds confusing but those are the facts. For certain signals sometimes are 1080i look better, in most cases especially for fast paced games 720p is the preferred signal.
Comment by Mutsch — Nov 28, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
@Mutsch
Glad to see you read the article I posted.
Comment by SolidSlug — Nov 28, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
Feel this answer to the questions are somewhat misleading
Resolution in terms of pixels are the same between 1080p and 1080i. The difference being that one is updated a full frame 60 times per sec (roughly) and the other is at 60 fields per second - arguably equivalent to frame being updated 30 times a second. In terms of pixels being pushed per second the former is equal to 124,416,000 pixels per second and the latter is half that amount - 62,208,000 pixels per second. Both are higher than 720p which comes in at 921,600 pixels/sec.
720p is arguably better than 1080i for images with a lot of motion due to its higher temporal (frames per second) resolution and perhaps also due to its higher vertical resolution - 720 lines versus 540 (for 1080i).
Not sure I understand the following comment “However, as the PS3 firmware can be updated, this is something that could be included in a later revision and unlike the recent 360 update, the PS3 can run true 1080p, as HDMI is standard on both 20 & 60gb models.”
I think it is great that the PS3 has hdmi and that is supports true 1080p but the implication of this comment is that the xbox360 cannot display a 1080p picture which isn’t true - if you have a VGA cable.
Comment by Remle The Dog — Nov 28, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Slight edit to previous post - I typed in the wrong value for the pixels per sec for 720p. I should have said 55,296,000 - still less than 1080i
Comment by Remle The Dog — Nov 28, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
720p does not have higher resolution than 1080i.
People are mixing up the terms here. Even the sony guys:
“720p is a higher resolution than 1080iâ€Â
Okay… since when?
In the analogue world of describing the picture in lines the 720p-mode forces a CRT-TV to scan 720 lines per pass while 1080i-mode scans using only 540 lines (consuming less bandwidth and puts less strain on your CRT in the process). Thus your “lower resolution“ as the Sony guy is trying to put it.
But scan-lines are not the same thing as resolution. In fact resolution is a different category all together. So while 1080i uses less bandwidth than 720p to scan its fewer scan-lines the resolution contained in those 540 scan-lines is actually higher than on the 720 scan-lines of 720p. 1 036 800 vs. 921 600 pixels to be exact.
So the correct answer here is:
1. 720p consumes more bandwidth than 1080i
and…
2. 720p has lower resolution than 1080i
Comment by Daniel — Nov 28, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
Wow Sony is pretty lame to try and pass the buck to the developers for not supporting 1080I, even though a dev for resistance said they had this in the game but were told to pull it at the last minute.
“and unlike the recent 360 update, the PS3 can run true 1080p,”
Also a total crock of crap as the 360 can fully render Native 1080P in a game.
Sonic is the first game on either platform to support 1080P, and it was on the 360 first. Also using VGA you get True 1080P on HD-DVD’s and you can upscale SDVD’s to 1080P.
Pretty sad of them to try and take a cheap shot at the 360 which has no problem delivering “Up to” TRUE 1080P content to any HDTV in the world.
Comment by Swanlee — Nov 28, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
Generally, a 1080i set receives a frame of 960×540 every 60th of a second, which is why it is considered interlaced. A 720p set generally can receive a 1280×720 frame once every second. Obviously, it can go all the way down to 24fps. 1080i is generally good for stationary shots on an object because it can show more detail at the cost of a lower refresh rate. 720p is generally better for fast-paced action as it has a smoother image. I hope that helps a bit.
Comment by Stephen Frost — Nov 28, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
Stephen - while I get what you are saying you are slightly incorrect. Interlaced does not also mean that the horizontal (left to right) resolution gets halved only the vertical (top to bottom). In other words on the first 1/60 of a second the TV will draw 540 lines from top to bottom alternating lines but it will draw those lines at full cross-wide resolution. That is the entire 1920 pixels across.
Comment by Remle The Dog — Nov 29, 2006 @ 12:06 am
*Sighs* Less of the FUD please. The 360 can do native 1080p and you don’t need HDMI to do it, it just doesn’t have any content rendered at the resolution yet.
The 1080i issue doesn’t effect many people, mainly those with early HDTV’s, particulary CRT ones. As they probably queued up for 3 days to get their hands on one, they probably deserve a fix!
Getting it sorted will do more than the sly digs at the competition
Comment by deftangel — Nov 29, 2006 @ 12:30 am
I think what’s thrown people (just me then?) is that the list is in order of resolution QUALITY, not resolution. 1080i is displayed at a higher resolution but the quality isn’t classed as good as 720p due to it being an interlaced output (540 lines vertically)… ?
Anyway, I’m going to bed.
Comment by Soong — Nov 29, 2006 @ 1:12 am
I think the math is lacking here.
Assuming these standards - 1080 at 60I and 720 at 60P
1080×60i updates half of the fields at the same rate as 720×60p:
Or, simplified:
1920×540 (for 1080i) = 1,036,800
1280×720 (for 720p) = 921,600
Whomever is posting otherwise seems to be quite confused about this. A good article that explains ALL the ATSC formats is available at: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/284986.html
I’m really at a loss to understand where people are getting this stuff… “A 720p set generallly can recieve a 1280×720 frame ONCE EVERY SECOND??” and a “1080i set receives a frame of 960×540???” Where are these numbers coming from?
“Actually things are more complicated you have to take framerates and progressive/interlaced modes into account. basically a signal with 1080i needs a lower bandwidth to as two images of 540 lines will be generated (interlaced). A 720p progressive signal at the same time has a higher resolution than 1080i. I no that this sounds confusing but those are the facts”
Just doing some simple multiplication would demonstrate that what you’re saying is NOT valid.
Geez. This stuff isn’t that confusing people.
Comment by BLite — Nov 29, 2006 @ 5:07 am
(The obvious conclusion, BTW, is that 1080i HAS to push more pixels than 720p does at its highest refresh rate).
Comment by BLite — Nov 29, 2006 @ 5:09 am
“720p is a higher resolution than 1080i.”
Excuse me, what?! That’s complete and utter bulls***. The fact that 1080i is interlaced has nothing to do with the fact that the resolution is still 1920×1080 - which is far greater than 1280×720. 1080i is de-interlaced in the display device and displayed as 1080p, and you get full 1920×1080 resolution. This has nothing to do with 720p looking smoother; I’m only taking issue with that idiotic statement.
Comment by Petri — Nov 29, 2006 @ 9:29 am
Do yourself a favor and read something:
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm
I don’t know how this applies to LCD and other fixed pixels HDTVs that do not scan.
Comment by SolidSlug — Nov 29, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
“A 720p progressive signal at the same time has a higher resolution than 1080i.”
No no no. They are leaning on a technicality. Nobody cares about bandwidth, it’s about the resulting picture. If the “pieced together” picture has 1080 vertical lines, then it is irrefutably a higher resolution than 720p (which only has 720 vertical lines).
Just because the display method of those lines is different doen’t change the actual resulting resolution.
Or ignore the truth and continue to bow down to Sony and all their inanities.
HDMI (aka DVI with Audio) doesn’t make HD any “truer”. You can use DVI and even component for 1080p as well. The problem is manufacturer’s are in bed with the movie companies, so those signals are forcibly denied on some connections, even though there’s no technical roadblock.
Comment by SuicideNinja — Nov 30, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
Ok folks, time for a quick and dirty explanation of what the p’s and i’s in HDTV modes mean.
Basically, for an i mode, you cut the actual resolution in half. 1080i is a 960 x 540 (518400) pixel image sent each refresh, with each refresh drawing half the screen (540 lines per frame = less than 720).
1080p is a 1920 x 1080 (2073600) pixel image sent each refresh.
So, 720p at 1280 x 720 (921600) pixels is almost double 1080i’s pixel count…
All that said, it is pretty crappy that the $600 monster machine didn’t ship with universal HDTV support, but I don’t care as I don’t have an HDTV set yet… or a PS3, since I’m waiting ’till they’re on the shelves.
Comment by Ray Brown — Dec 3, 2006 @ 7:47 am
Geesh people….
960 x 540 is a 1/4 of 1920 x 1080, not half.
Comment by Dave — Dec 18, 2006 @ 5:05 am
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment