PS3 101: New user's guide to the PS3 (ask questions here -- TMK is on duty)
- Thread starter SteveMcQ
- Start date
[quote name='DestroVega']which receiver are u using?[/quote]
Onkyo TX-NR905. Any HDMI 1.1 receiver will do though, since the PS3 is incapable of bitstreaming. The receiver doesn't have to do the decoding (though mine can), it just has to be able to handle 5.1/7.1 PCM over HDMI. Pretty much every receiver over $400 fits that bill.
Onkyo TX-NR905. Any HDMI 1.1 receiver will do though, since the PS3 is incapable of bitstreaming. The receiver doesn't have to do the decoding (though mine can), it just has to be able to handle 5.1/7.1 PCM over HDMI. Pretty much every receiver over $400 fits that bill.
DestroVega
CAGiversary!
[quote name='geko29']Onkyo TX-NR905. Any HDMI 1.1 receiver will do though, since the PS3 is incapable of bitstreaming. The receiver doesn't have to do the decoding (though mine can), it just has to be able to handle 5.1/7.1 PCM over HDMI. Pretty much every receiver over $400 fits that bill.[/quote]
yeah I have the Onkyo 605
yeah I have the Onkyo 605
[quote name='D_Icon']If my TV only supports 1080i and a game supports 1080p, how do I play the game in 1080i? It sets itself to 720p.[/quote]
Unfortunately that's a limitation of the PS3. It doesn't have a hardware scaler (and nobody bothered to write one in software), so any resolution not EXPLICITLY supported by the game is completely unavailable. If your TV doesn't natively support 720p for most games, or 1080p for a few others (mine supports neither), then you need to pay $1000+ for an external scaler to play those games in HD. Luckily, my ($2000+) receiver can convert 720p to 1080i without a problem, but my friend with the identical TV isn't so fortunate. He has to play nearly every game in 480p, because that's the highest the PS3 is capable of for non-native resolutions.
It's complete and utter bullshit.
Unfortunately that's a limitation of the PS3. It doesn't have a hardware scaler (and nobody bothered to write one in software), so any resolution not EXPLICITLY supported by the game is completely unavailable. If your TV doesn't natively support 720p for most games, or 1080p for a few others (mine supports neither), then you need to pay $1000+ for an external scaler to play those games in HD. Luckily, my ($2000+) receiver can convert 720p to 1080i without a problem, but my friend with the identical TV isn't so fortunate. He has to play nearly every game in 480p, because that's the highest the PS3 is capable of for non-native resolutions.
It's complete and utter bullshit.
[quote name='DestroVega']yeah I have the Onkyo 605[/quote]
Then you're golden. It can both decode advanced codecs (from a blu-ray player like the Panasonic BD-P30 or HD DVD player like the Toshiba HD-A35), as well as accept multichannel PCM from any player on the market (including the PS3).
My parents have one (which they use with their PS3) and are about to buy another. It's a great receiver, and there's no beating it in price/performance. Definitely the best deal around.
Then you're golden. It can both decode advanced codecs (from a blu-ray player like the Panasonic BD-P30 or HD DVD player like the Toshiba HD-A35), as well as accept multichannel PCM from any player on the market (including the PS3).
My parents have one (which they use with their PS3) and are about to buy another. It's a great receiver, and there's no beating it in price/performance. Definitely the best deal around.
aznguyen316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 49 (100%)
[quote name='geko29']Unfortunately that's a limitation of the PS3. It doesn't have a hardware scaler (and nobody bothered to write one in software), so any resolution not EXPLICITLY supported by the game is completely unavailable. If your TV doesn't natively support 720p for most games, or 1080p for a few others (mine supports neither), then you need to pay $1000+ for an external scaler to play those games in HD. Luckily, my ($2000+) receiver can convert 720p to 1080i without a problem, but my friend with the identical TV isn't so fortunate. He has to play nearly every game in 480p, because that's the highest the PS3 is capable of for non-native resolutions.
It's complete and utter bullshit.[/quote]
wow this is news to me.. terrible!!
It's complete and utter bullshit.[/quote]
wow this is news to me.. terrible!!
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='geko29']Unfortunately that's a limitation of the PS3. It doesn't have a hardware scaler (and nobody bothered to write one in software), so any resolution not EXPLICITLY supported by the game is completely unavailable. If your TV doesn't natively support 720p for most games, or 1080p for a few others (mine supports neither), then you need to pay $1000+ for an external scaler to play those games in HD. Luckily, my ($2000+) receiver can convert 720p to 1080i without a problem, but my friend with the identical TV isn't so fortunate. He has to play nearly every game in 480p, because that's the highest the PS3 is capable of for non-native resolutions.
It's complete and utter bullshit.[/QUOTE]Sony was mostly thinking about designing the PS3 to work with LCDs/Plasmas, which is why it was ignored (And CRT HDTVs are very rare in Japan too, from what I believe).
That's part of the reason I waited to buy my HDTV after my PS3, since I wanted to get one that works great with my PS3 (and mine does too, since it does 720p great and even goes up to 1080p).
Actually, PS3 DOES have a hardware scaler; however, it only scales horizontally and it must be utilized by a developer (some developers avoid it because it does consume some memory).
It's complete and utter bullshit.[/QUOTE]Sony was mostly thinking about designing the PS3 to work with LCDs/Plasmas, which is why it was ignored (And CRT HDTVs are very rare in Japan too, from what I believe).
That's part of the reason I waited to buy my HDTV after my PS3, since I wanted to get one that works great with my PS3 (and mine does too, since it does 720p great and even goes up to 1080p).
Actually, PS3 DOES have a hardware scaler; however, it only scales horizontally and it must be utilized by a developer (some developers avoid it because it does consume some memory).
[quote name='The Mana Knight']That's part of the reason I waited to buy my HDTV after my PS3, since I wanted to get one that works great with my PS3 (and mine does too, since it does 720p great and even goes up to 1080p).[/quote]
Some of us went HiDef before the PS3 was ANNOUNCED.
I was a latecomer to the game, and still got in more than 3 years before the 360 was announced. I got my THIRD HDTV right around the time the PS3 came out.
Besides, just because one has a 1080p set doesn't mean that said set has a decent scaler. 720p games may still look like ass. Not disparaging your set, of course, but many do not do well with non-native resolutions.
Aside from all that, having to plan the purchase of a $2-5k item based on the limitations of $400 one = LAME!
Some of us went HiDef before the PS3 was ANNOUNCED.
I was a latecomer to the game, and still got in more than 3 years before the 360 was announced. I got my THIRD HDTV right around the time the PS3 came out. Besides, just because one has a 1080p set doesn't mean that said set has a decent scaler. 720p games may still look like ass. Not disparaging your set, of course, but many do not do well with non-native resolutions.
Aside from all that, having to plan the purchase of a $2-5k item based on the limitations of $400 one = LAME!
GLOCKGLOCK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
Does anyone have any problems with Blu Ray Playback? It seems that when I'm watching a BD 2 or 3 times during the movie the framerate slows down for about 4-5 seconds and everything looks like a stop action movie.
[quote name='GLOCKGLOCK']Does anyone have any problems with Blu Ray Playback? It seems that when I'm watching a BD 2 or 3 times during the movie the framerate slows down for about 4-5 seconds and everything looks like a stop action movie.[/quote]
That sucks. Nope...never happened to me and I watch 2+ movies a week.
That sucks. Nope...never happened to me and I watch 2+ movies a week.
[quote name='geko29']Unfortunately that's a limitation of the PS3. It doesn't have a hardware scaler (and nobody bothered to write one in software), so any resolution not EXPLICITLY supported by the game is completely unavailable. If your TV doesn't natively support 720p for most games, or 1080p for a few others (mine supports neither), then you need to pay $1000+ for an external scaler to play those games in HD. Luckily, my ($2000+) receiver can convert 720p to 1080i without a problem, but my friend with the identical TV isn't so fortunate. He has to play nearly every game in 480p, because that's the highest the PS3 is capable of for non-native resolutions.
It's complete and utter bullshit.[/quote]
Thanks for claryfing.
720p doesn't look bad, but you can't go wrong with more.
It's complete and utter bullshit.[/quote]
Thanks for claryfing.
720p doesn't look bad, but you can't go wrong with more.
johnnypark
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 57 (100%)
I have a question.
I want to get a headset soon, but would prefer a wired one so I can use it for Skype also. Are basically all USB headsets compatible w/ the PS3, or should I do more research before buying one?
I want to get a headset soon, but would prefer a wired one so I can use it for Skype also. Are basically all USB headsets compatible w/ the PS3, or should I do more research before buying one?
Oxygen
CAGiversary!
[quote name='johnnypark']I have a question.
I want to get a headset soon, but would prefer a wired one so I can use it for Skype also. Are basically all USB headsets compatible w/ the PS3, or should I do more research before buying one?[/quote]
I have not heard of a USB headset that does not work on the PS3, so you should be good to go.
I want to get a headset soon, but would prefer a wired one so I can use it for Skype also. Are basically all USB headsets compatible w/ the PS3, or should I do more research before buying one?[/quote]
I have not heard of a USB headset that does not work on the PS3, so you should be good to go.
[quote name='Wolfpup']Regarding that whole 720p thing, whatever some people want to claim, if your TV doesn't support 720p, it's NOT an HDTV. It may be a TV that does high resolutions, but it is NOT an actual HDTV, as you have to support 720p and 1080i at an HD resolution to be an HDTV.[/quote]
You're completely wrong. To be an HDTV, a set must be able to display content at 1035, 1080, or 1125 lines of resolution. That would be ITU-R section 500, further ratified by ATSC standard A/53. Both are based on a variety of standards set by the SMPTE (too numerous to list). 720p was added as an "alternative" resolution, when people complained about judder on fast-action live content like football. It was never intended to be widely used. HDTVs must accept a 720p signal (along with 17 other resolutions), but need not display it at that resolution, because it's not part of the standard.
You can invent whatever definition of HDTV you want, but everyone who matters disagrees with you.
You're completely wrong. To be an HDTV, a set must be able to display content at 1035, 1080, or 1125 lines of resolution. That would be ITU-R section 500, further ratified by ATSC standard A/53. Both are based on a variety of standards set by the SMPTE (too numerous to list). 720p was added as an "alternative" resolution, when people complained about judder on fast-action live content like football. It was never intended to be widely used. HDTVs must accept a 720p signal (along with 17 other resolutions), but need not display it at that resolution, because it's not part of the standard.
You can invent whatever definition of HDTV you want, but everyone who matters disagrees with you.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='geko29']You're completely wrong. To be an HDTV, a set must be able to display content at 1035, 1080, or 1125 lines of resolution.[/quote]
No it doesn't. 720p sets are HDTVs if they're otherwise HDTVs. And it doesn't matter if it handles 720p or 1080i natively, as long as it scales it to an HD resolution. But it HAS to handle (ie accept) both, or it's not an HDTV.
No it doesn't. 720p sets are HDTVs if they're otherwise HDTVs. And it doesn't matter if it handles 720p or 1080i natively, as long as it scales it to an HD resolution. But it HAS to handle (ie accept) both, or it's not an HDTV.
Slim Gatsby
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 96 (97%)
Okay, experts, I've got both my PS3 and PSP, but I hit a snafu. I can connect the PS3 to the PSP directly for remote play (using the ad-hoc network connection) but it cannot find the PS3 through WiFi if I am away from home (or home and trying to connect using the "internet"). I synched them with a USB cable and they both have the latest firmware.
Could it be a port on my router that needs to be opened? Its a Netgear wireless, I'm not home so I don't have the router with me. Incidentally, Remote Acess in XP/Vista between my laptop and home desktop does the same thing: they can access one another when on the same network, but as soon as I try to connect over the internet, it cannot connect.
Could it be a port on my router that needs to be opened? Its a Netgear wireless, I'm not home so I don't have the router with me. Incidentally, Remote Acess in XP/Vista between my laptop and home desktop does the same thing: they can access one another when on the same network, but as soon as I try to connect over the internet, it cannot connect.
[quote name='Wolfpup']No it doesn't. 720p sets are HDTVs if they're otherwise HDTVs. And it doesn't matter if it handles 720p or 1080i natively, as long as it scales it to an HD resolution. But it HAS to handle (ie accept) both, or it's not an HDTV.[/quote]
Yes it does. Look up the standards. It's right there in black and white. No display at 1035, 1080 or 1125=not HD. Like I said, you can invent whatever rules you want, but the standards bodies disagree with you. And their opinion is the only one that counts. Your second statement is right. It does have to accept 720p. Along with 17 other resolutions (I mentioned this in my above post). And they all do that. But the ATSC standard says nothing about how they're displayed.
But aside from that, even older sets such as mine DO display 720p in a HD resolution. In my case it's at 960i. But it passes through 480p on the way there. This is similar to the way many current "1080p" sets with crappy or nonexistent deinterlacers handle 1080i. They bob the 1080i down to 540p and then quadruple every pixel to get 1080p. In either case the result is shit. By your definition it's a Hi-Def picture, because the end result has over a million pixels. By mine it isn't, because it came from SD.
All that is beside the point, however. There are $40 DVD players that can upscale and deinterlace film-sourced 480i/24 content to 720p/30, 1080i/60 or 1080p/30. The $400-600 PS3 can't do this on progressive content it's CREATING on the fly--a job that is FAR easier. That's an oversight of the highest order, and it's totally unacceptable. Despite all their other
-ups, this is one thing that MS didn't overlook when they made their console more than a year earlier.
No matter how you slice it, sony screwed the pooch on this one.
Yes it does. Look up the standards. It's right there in black and white. No display at 1035, 1080 or 1125=not HD. Like I said, you can invent whatever rules you want, but the standards bodies disagree with you. And their opinion is the only one that counts. Your second statement is right. It does have to accept 720p. Along with 17 other resolutions (I mentioned this in my above post). And they all do that. But the ATSC standard says nothing about how they're displayed.
But aside from that, even older sets such as mine DO display 720p in a HD resolution. In my case it's at 960i. But it passes through 480p on the way there. This is similar to the way many current "1080p" sets with crappy or nonexistent deinterlacers handle 1080i. They bob the 1080i down to 540p and then quadruple every pixel to get 1080p. In either case the result is shit. By your definition it's a Hi-Def picture, because the end result has over a million pixels. By mine it isn't, because it came from SD.
All that is beside the point, however. There are $40 DVD players that can upscale and deinterlace film-sourced 480i/24 content to 720p/30, 1080i/60 or 1080p/30. The $400-600 PS3 can't do this on progressive content it's CREATING on the fly--a job that is FAR easier. That's an oversight of the highest order, and it's totally unacceptable. Despite all their other
-ups, this is one thing that MS didn't overlook when they made their console more than a year earlier.No matter how you slice it, sony screwed the pooch on this one.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='Slim Gatsby']Okay, experts, I've got both my PS3 and PSP, but I hit a snafu. I can connect the PS3 to the PSP directly for remote play (using the ad-hoc network connection) but it cannot find the PS3 through WiFi if I am away from home (or home and trying to connect using the "internet"). I synched them with a USB cable and they both have the latest firmware.
Could it be a port on my router that needs to be opened? Its a Netgear wireless, I'm not home so I don't have the router with me. Incidentally, Remote Acess in XP/Vista between my laptop and home desktop does the same thing: they can access one another when on the same network, but as soon as I try to connect over the internet, it cannot connect.[/QUOTE]
I have the same problem, except I can't even connect on the same network.
Could it be a port on my router that needs to be opened? Its a Netgear wireless, I'm not home so I don't have the router with me. Incidentally, Remote Acess in XP/Vista between my laptop and home desktop does the same thing: they can access one another when on the same network, but as soon as I try to connect over the internet, it cannot connect.[/QUOTE]
I have the same problem, except I can't even connect on the same network.
[quote name='Slim Gatsby']Okay, experts, I've got both my PS3 and PSP, but I hit a snafu. I can connect the PS3 to the PSP directly for remote play (using the ad-hoc network connection) but it cannot find the PS3 through WiFi if I am away from home (or home and trying to connect using the "internet"). I synched them with a USB cable and they both have the latest firmware.
Could it be a port on my router that needs to be opened? Its a Netgear wireless, I'm not home so I don't have the router with me. Incidentally, Remote Acess in XP/Vista between my laptop and home desktop does the same thing: they can access one another when on the same network, but as soon as I try to connect over the internet, it cannot connect.[/quote]
You need to enable port forwarding. Specifically, you need to forward TCP 9293 to your PS3's IP address, which should either be set statically, or via a DHCP reservation in your router (so it always gets the same address).
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I have the same problem, except I can't even connect on the same network.[/quote]
You I can't help, unfortunately. I'm an expert in networking, but not in Remote Play (never even touched a PSP). Sorry.
Could it be a port on my router that needs to be opened? Its a Netgear wireless, I'm not home so I don't have the router with me. Incidentally, Remote Acess in XP/Vista between my laptop and home desktop does the same thing: they can access one another when on the same network, but as soon as I try to connect over the internet, it cannot connect.[/quote]
You need to enable port forwarding. Specifically, you need to forward TCP 9293 to your PS3's IP address, which should either be set statically, or via a DHCP reservation in your router (so it always gets the same address).
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I have the same problem, except I can't even connect on the same network.[/quote]
You I can't help, unfortunately. I'm an expert in networking, but not in Remote Play (never even touched a PSP). Sorry.
Slim Gatsby
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 96 (97%)
[quote name='geko29']You need to enable port forwarding. Specifically, you need to forward TCP 9293 to your PS3's IP address, which should either be set statically, or via a DHCP reservation in your router (so it always gets the same address).
[/quote]
Oh, thanks! I figured there was something I needed to dick around with in the router setup. Is there a handy tutorial I should consult? And is there a similar trick I can use to remote access my desktop? Thanks again!
[/quote]
Oh, thanks! I figured there was something I needed to dick around with in the router setup. Is there a handy tutorial I should consult? And is there a similar trick I can use to remote access my desktop? Thanks again!
The best way is to look in your router's manual. If you don't have it handy, you can find it on netgear's site. The port for remote desktop is UDP 3389, but I HIGHLY recommend you do not forward it, as that essentially puts your machine directly on the internet for remote control. Anyone who can crack your password or otherwise exploit RDP can take complete control of your machine, everything on it, as well as everything else on your network.
With a very good password--12 or more characters, using all 4 categories of characters (lowercase, uppercase, numbers, symbols)--the chances of this happening are admittedly small. But the consequences are disastrous. Better to get a router that can terminate VPN tunnels (or one that has hacked firmware available with that capability) and connect to your network via IPSec.
With a very good password--12 or more characters, using all 4 categories of characters (lowercase, uppercase, numbers, symbols)--the chances of this happening are admittedly small. But the consequences are disastrous. Better to get a router that can terminate VPN tunnels (or one that has hacked firmware available with that capability) and connect to your network via IPSec.
Slim Gatsby
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 96 (97%)
Would opening that put other devices on the network at risk, or just the system with remote access? Using a long string of random numbers, letters, and symbols as the password for a limited account (one with, say, the ability to view but not modify files except those created specifically by that account) for remote access, how severe of a security risk would that be?
port forwarding puts the specific machine and application at some risk, in exchange for access. Usually there are other safeguards in place (PSP registration for remote play, password for windows access). There is no direct threat to other devices because of a PF setup. However, if the end device is compromised, there may be a tremendous indirect threat as a result.
If someone hacks remote play and gets into your PS3, what's the worst they can do? Watch your media, delete your save games, etc. No big deal. Damage is minimal, and limited to the contents of your PS3's hard drive.
If someone breaks remote desktop and gets into your PC, what's the worst they can do? Whatever they want, to anything they want in your house with a network connection. As I said before, the chances of someone doing this are fairly low unless you have enemies. But the consequences in that rare case are absolutely catastrophic.
Limiting the account is another step in the right direction, though I'm not sure what the usability ramifications of that are. I guess the best question to ask is, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
If someone hacks remote play and gets into your PS3, what's the worst they can do? Watch your media, delete your save games, etc. No big deal. Damage is minimal, and limited to the contents of your PS3's hard drive.
If someone breaks remote desktop and gets into your PC, what's the worst they can do? Whatever they want, to anything they want in your house with a network connection. As I said before, the chances of someone doing this are fairly low unless you have enemies. But the consequences in that rare case are absolutely catastrophic.
Limiting the account is another step in the right direction, though I'm not sure what the usability ramifications of that are. I guess the best question to ask is, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Slim Gatsby
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 96 (97%)
Primarily, I want to be able to access multimedia at home from my dorm, as well as be able to access assignments-in-progress that I have saved there, and, in a rare case, maybe do some work in Premiere or something remotely. If the account authorized for remote access is a restricted account that can not modify any key files or talk to other devices, simply view media, access programs, and create/save its own files, there shouldn't be much of a problem, right?
Question for anyone who might be able to help.
I have a 60gb PS#. Tonight I was using the browser to check some score before playing a few games and the system froze on me. Since that time, I have not been able to play ps2 games on my machine. Last night I was playing Odin's Sphere and Shadow Heart with no problems. Now, neither of them will play and I just get a black screen when I try to play. I never even get to the PlayStation 2 logo coming up.
I have tested all other forms of media on the machine, PS3 Games, Blu-Ray, DVD, Cd ... and they all play fine. PS2 Games simply will not play at all.
I have tried doing a default setting restore and that did nothing to help. It still will not ready those games or any other ps2 game I tried. Any help would be appreciated.
I have a 60gb PS#. Tonight I was using the browser to check some score before playing a few games and the system froze on me. Since that time, I have not been able to play ps2 games on my machine. Last night I was playing Odin's Sphere and Shadow Heart with no problems. Now, neither of them will play and I just get a black screen when I try to play. I never even get to the PlayStation 2 logo coming up.
I have tested all other forms of media on the machine, PS3 Games, Blu-Ray, DVD, Cd ... and they all play fine. PS2 Games simply will not play at all.
I have tried doing a default setting restore and that did nothing to help. It still will not ready those games or any other ps2 game I tried. Any help would be appreciated.
Sounds like some of the older PS2 parts in the 60gb system may have broken somehow. Just so you know, the way the PS3 has almost full backward compatibility is that it actually has a bunch of PS2 parts in it.
If it's only PS2 games not working, it's likely that one of those parts fried.
If it's only PS2 games not working, it's likely that one of those parts fried.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='AdvOfJet']Question for anyone who might be able to help.
I have a 60gb PS#. Tonight I was using the browser to check some score before playing a few games and the system froze on me. Since that time, I have not been able to play ps2 games on my machine. Last night I was playing Odin's Sphere and Shadow Heart with no problems. Now, neither of them will play and I just get a black screen when I try to play. I never even get to the PlayStation 2 logo coming up.
I have tested all other forms of media on the machine, PS3 Games, Blu-Ray, DVD, Cd ... and they all play fine. PS2 Games simply will not play at all.
I have tried doing a default setting restore and that did nothing to help. It still will not ready those games or any other ps2 game I tried. Any help would be appreciated.[/QUOTE]Did you try any other PS2 games? I just ask because sometimes firmware updates will cause some games to not work, including on the 20GB/60GB consoles (happened to Wild Arms 4 last year).
I have a 60gb PS#. Tonight I was using the browser to check some score before playing a few games and the system froze on me. Since that time, I have not been able to play ps2 games on my machine. Last night I was playing Odin's Sphere and Shadow Heart with no problems. Now, neither of them will play and I just get a black screen when I try to play. I never even get to the PlayStation 2 logo coming up.
I have tested all other forms of media on the machine, PS3 Games, Blu-Ray, DVD, Cd ... and they all play fine. PS2 Games simply will not play at all.
I have tried doing a default setting restore and that did nothing to help. It still will not ready those games or any other ps2 game I tried. Any help would be appreciated.[/QUOTE]Did you try any other PS2 games? I just ask because sometimes firmware updates will cause some games to not work, including on the 20GB/60GB consoles (happened to Wild Arms 4 last year).
[quote name='The Mana Knight']Did you try any other PS2 games? I just ask because sometimes firmware updates will cause some games to not work, including on the 20GB/60GB consoles (happened to Wild Arms 4 last year).[/quote]
Yeah I tried about 6 different games, all of which worked in the last week or so even after I had done the latest update. After trying several times in a row it worked once, butI have no idea what i did to get it to work since the very next time it was back to not working again.
Yeah I tried about 6 different games, all of which worked in the last week or so even after I had done the latest update. After trying several times in a row it worked once, butI have no idea what i did to get it to work since the very next time it was back to not working again.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='geko29']Yes it does. Look up the standards. It's right there in black and white. No display at 1035, 1080 or 1125=not HD. Like I said, you can invent whatever rules you want, but the standards bodies disagree with you. And their opinion is the only one that counts. Your second statement is right. It does have to accept 720p. Along with 17 other resolutions (I mentioned this in my above post). And they all do that. But the ATSC standard says nothing about how they're displayed.[/quote]
ATSC needs to support 480i/p, 720p, and 1080i. If it dosen't, the thing isn't an HDTV.
No that's not by my definition. That's really terrible if they're doing that, and I don't think that should qualify as an HDTV, since it can't actually display one of the HD resolutions.
If you're talking about games, that's NOT an easier job. Those upscaling DVD players aren't displaying true HD content, they're just running it through a chip to convert to output to an HD resolution. That's similar to what the 360 does when displaying much of anything besides 720p (or lower in some cases).
The Playstation 3 doesn't have a scaling chip like that (which would add to its cost), so any game has to be explicitly coded for a resolution, which many developers aren't going to want to do, or may not be able to do depending on how hard the engine hits the hardware. That said, 1080p on the Playstation 3 is REAL 1080p, not 720p (or lower) scaled up to 1080p like on the 360.
And I've continued to pretty much disagree with this. It would have been nice had they included a scaler, but technically it does work in HD with any true HDTV (not HD monitor or whatever), and the 360 is the ONLY system with a scaler, and it would add expense to an already pricey system. Personally I don't believe it should come as a shock that you'd need a TV that has real support for all HD resolutions at some point.
ATSC needs to support 480i/p, 720p, and 1080i. If it dosen't, the thing isn't an HDTV.
No that's not by my definition. That's really terrible if they're doing that, and I don't think that should qualify as an HDTV, since it can't actually display one of the HD resolutions.
If you're talking about games, that's NOT an easier job. Those upscaling DVD players aren't displaying true HD content, they're just running it through a chip to convert to output to an HD resolution. That's similar to what the 360 does when displaying much of anything besides 720p (or lower in some cases).
The Playstation 3 doesn't have a scaling chip like that (which would add to its cost), so any game has to be explicitly coded for a resolution, which many developers aren't going to want to do, or may not be able to do depending on how hard the engine hits the hardware. That said, 1080p on the Playstation 3 is REAL 1080p, not 720p (or lower) scaled up to 1080p like on the 360.
That's an oversight of the highest order, and it's totally unacceptable. Despite all their other
No matter how you slice it, sony screwed the pooch on this one.
And I've continued to pretty much disagree with this. It would have been nice had they included a scaler, but technically it does work in HD with any true HDTV (not HD monitor or whatever), and the 360 is the ONLY system with a scaler, and it would add expense to an already pricey system. Personally I don't believe it should come as a shock that you'd need a TV that has real support for all HD resolutions at some point.
[quote name='Wolfpup']ATSC needs to support 480i/p, 720p, and 1080i. If it dosen't, the thing isn't an HDTV.[/quote]
As inputs yes. And they all do. Nobody's arguing that, except you apparently. ATSC says nothing about what happens to the little electrons once they get inside the magic box. Just that 18 resolutions have to be accepted at input, and at least one of them has to output with 1035, 1080, or 1125 lines of resolution. What it does with the other 17 is its own business.
[quote name='Wolfpup']No that's not by my definition. That's really terrible if they're doing that, and I don't think that should qualify as an HDTV, since it can't actually display one of the HD resolutions. [/quote]
Then better than half of TVs currently on the market advertised as 768p or 1080p aren't HDTVs. If you include sets already in homes, I'd peg that number as more like 90%.
[quote name='Wolfpup']If you're talking about games, that's NOT an easier job. Those upscaling DVD players aren't displaying true HD content, they're just running it through a chip to convert to output to an HD resolution. That's similar to what the 360 does when displaying much of anything besides 720p (or lower in some cases).[/quote]
It absolutely is easier, and it works just like you said. You take the output from the frame buffer, and scale it. You don't have to de-interlace it, or do a 3:2:2 pulldown or anything. Just take a static image, and make it bigger. Easy as pie. Microsoft paint can do it. Then just repeat 29 more times.
[quote name='Wolfpup']The Playstation 3 doesn't have a scaling chip like that (which would add to its cost)[/quote]
The chips to do so cost almost nothing, as evidenced by their inclusion in VERY cheap consumer electronics. Besides, you always argue that a half-dozen rather complex proprietary chips only used in one type of device should cost almost nothing. What of a very simple one that's used in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of devices a year?
[quote name='Wolfpup']any game has to be explicitly coded for a resolution, which many developers aren't going to want to do, or may not be able to do depending on how hard the engine hits the hardware.[/quote]
That's my point. Putting in a scaler, like they should have done, avoids all those problems. It lets people play games at the highest resolution their device supports, whether that be 720p, 768p, 1080i/p, or some goofball resolution like many monitors use. Why purposely limit the people who can see all of your games in the highest possible quality to 10% of the audience? It's retarded.
[quote name='Wolfpup']That said, 1080p on the Playstation 3 is REAL 1080p, not 720p (or lower) scaled up to 1080p like on the 360.[/quote]
See that's not true either. Call of Duty 4, for example, is rendered at 600p, and upscaled by the game engine to 720p by default, or 1080p if you go into the menus and disable 720p and 1080i output. There are plenty of others that do this.
There are MORE 1080p games for the PS3, this is true. Beyond3D reports there are 4 more. This number is a bit larger if you include the games that render at 1440x1080, 1280x1080, etc etc.
However, I'm not trying to get into an inter-console pissing match here. I have and enjoy both (One 360 and three PS3s). Your previous posts have led me to believe that you have neither (and certainly not the one you're so vehemently defending now). They both have plenty of failings. But somehow pointing out the failings of one of them is verboten? Aup is not a up unless Microsoft did it?
[quote name='Wolfpup']And I've continued to pretty much disagree with this. It would have been nice had they included a scaler, but technically it does work in HD with any true HDTV (not HD monitor or whatever)[/quote]
Yes, it works at all resolutions with the 10% or so of HDTVs in the wild that are "actually HDTVs". What a huge accomplishment. Bravo.
[quote name='Wolfpup']and the 360 is the ONLY system with a scaler[/quote]
One out of two sounds so much less damning when you re-phrase it as ONLY. How about I try your little spin?
Every other HD game console ever made has a scaler.
Neat how that works. The reality is there have only been two consoles released to the market capable of rendering in HD with full detail (PS2 and Xbox games had to be hobbled to run in high-res). One of them has more 1080p games, but can't scale any games. The other one can scale every single one of its games to the highest resolution supported by pretty much every display (up to 1920x1080) ever sold. Gee, I can't see why anybody would want that....
[quote name='Wolfpup']and it would add expense to an already pricey system.[/quote]
So including nearly every part of a $120 machine except for the DVD drive should add almost no cost whatsoever, but including one tiny chip out of a $40 one is an exhorbitant expense? Christ on a Pony, pick a side! :lol:
To make matters even worse, the 360 doesn't have a scaling chip either. Upscaling is handled by the GPU, as it should be. So there's ZERO extra cost.
[quote name='Wolfpup']Personally I don't believe it should come as a shock that you'd need a TV that has real support for all HD resolutions at some point.[/quote]
I'll agree with you here. It'd be awesome if all TVs had perfect support for every resolution, right out of the box. But the reality is we're a LONG way from that utopia. I know a LOT of people with HDTVs (aside from having three myself) from every brand under the sun (Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Westinghouse, etc etc etc), and not ONE of them has absolutely perfect support for every HD resolution, though one is close.
In the meantime, I expect a $600 device to have all the capabilities of a $40 one, and then some. You apparently don't, and that's fine I guess. In the beginning the PS3 couldn't upscale DVDs, or downscale Blu-Rays. The 360 couldn't output anything in 1080p. But I guess they shouldn't have added those features because they're not important. Upscaling games isn't important either, which is why nobody's ever complained about it. Oh, wait, that's right, they HAVE...
As inputs yes. And they all do. Nobody's arguing that, except you apparently. ATSC says nothing about what happens to the little electrons once they get inside the magic box. Just that 18 resolutions have to be accepted at input, and at least one of them has to output with 1035, 1080, or 1125 lines of resolution. What it does with the other 17 is its own business.
[quote name='Wolfpup']No that's not by my definition. That's really terrible if they're doing that, and I don't think that should qualify as an HDTV, since it can't actually display one of the HD resolutions. [/quote]
Then better than half of TVs currently on the market advertised as 768p or 1080p aren't HDTVs. If you include sets already in homes, I'd peg that number as more like 90%.
[quote name='Wolfpup']If you're talking about games, that's NOT an easier job. Those upscaling DVD players aren't displaying true HD content, they're just running it through a chip to convert to output to an HD resolution. That's similar to what the 360 does when displaying much of anything besides 720p (or lower in some cases).[/quote]
It absolutely is easier, and it works just like you said. You take the output from the frame buffer, and scale it. You don't have to de-interlace it, or do a 3:2:2 pulldown or anything. Just take a static image, and make it bigger. Easy as pie. Microsoft paint can do it. Then just repeat 29 more times.
[quote name='Wolfpup']The Playstation 3 doesn't have a scaling chip like that (which would add to its cost)[/quote]
The chips to do so cost almost nothing, as evidenced by their inclusion in VERY cheap consumer electronics. Besides, you always argue that a half-dozen rather complex proprietary chips only used in one type of device should cost almost nothing. What of a very simple one that's used in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of devices a year?
[quote name='Wolfpup']any game has to be explicitly coded for a resolution, which many developers aren't going to want to do, or may not be able to do depending on how hard the engine hits the hardware.[/quote]
That's my point. Putting in a scaler, like they should have done, avoids all those problems. It lets people play games at the highest resolution their device supports, whether that be 720p, 768p, 1080i/p, or some goofball resolution like many monitors use. Why purposely limit the people who can see all of your games in the highest possible quality to 10% of the audience? It's retarded.
[quote name='Wolfpup']That said, 1080p on the Playstation 3 is REAL 1080p, not 720p (or lower) scaled up to 1080p like on the 360.[/quote]
See that's not true either. Call of Duty 4, for example, is rendered at 600p, and upscaled by the game engine to 720p by default, or 1080p if you go into the menus and disable 720p and 1080i output. There are plenty of others that do this.
There are MORE 1080p games for the PS3, this is true. Beyond3D reports there are 4 more. This number is a bit larger if you include the games that render at 1440x1080, 1280x1080, etc etc.
However, I'm not trying to get into an inter-console pissing match here. I have and enjoy both (One 360 and three PS3s). Your previous posts have led me to believe that you have neither (and certainly not the one you're so vehemently defending now). They both have plenty of failings. But somehow pointing out the failings of one of them is verboten? A
up is not a up unless Microsoft did it?[quote name='Wolfpup']And I've continued to pretty much disagree with this. It would have been nice had they included a scaler, but technically it does work in HD with any true HDTV (not HD monitor or whatever)[/quote]
Yes, it works at all resolutions with the 10% or so of HDTVs in the wild that are "actually HDTVs". What a huge accomplishment. Bravo.
[quote name='Wolfpup']and the 360 is the ONLY system with a scaler[/quote]
One out of two sounds so much less damning when you re-phrase it as ONLY. How about I try your little spin?
Every other HD game console ever made has a scaler.
Neat how that works. The reality is there have only been two consoles released to the market capable of rendering in HD with full detail (PS2 and Xbox games had to be hobbled to run in high-res). One of them has more 1080p games, but can't scale any games. The other one can scale every single one of its games to the highest resolution supported by pretty much every display (up to 1920x1080) ever sold. Gee, I can't see why anybody would want that....
[quote name='Wolfpup']and it would add expense to an already pricey system.[/quote]
So including nearly every part of a $120 machine except for the DVD drive should add almost no cost whatsoever, but including one tiny chip out of a $40 one is an exhorbitant expense? Christ on a Pony, pick a side! :lol:
To make matters even worse, the 360 doesn't have a scaling chip either. Upscaling is handled by the GPU, as it should be. So there's ZERO extra cost.
[quote name='Wolfpup']Personally I don't believe it should come as a shock that you'd need a TV that has real support for all HD resolutions at some point.[/quote]
I'll agree with you here. It'd be awesome if all TVs had perfect support for every resolution, right out of the box. But the reality is we're a LONG way from that utopia. I know a LOT of people with HDTVs (aside from having three myself) from every brand under the sun (Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Westinghouse, etc etc etc), and not ONE of them has absolutely perfect support for every HD resolution, though one is close.
In the meantime, I expect a $600 device to have all the capabilities of a $40 one, and then some. You apparently don't, and that's fine I guess. In the beginning the PS3 couldn't upscale DVDs, or downscale Blu-Rays. The 360 couldn't output anything in 1080p. But I guess they shouldn't have added those features because they're not important. Upscaling games isn't important either, which is why nobody's ever complained about it. Oh, wait, that's right, they HAVE...
aznguyen316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 49 (100%)
okay guys, a couple quick Q's.
1) My bro just got a PS3, as I have one. Are saves linked to Users like they are on 360 profiles? I want to be able to play some games over at his place using my game saves.. possible? for example, games I'm currently playing: Ratchet & Clank, CoD4 MP..
2) are user profiles transferable? Can I take my user name/PSN onto his PS3 to play CoD4 or for whatever other reason. Whether this be by USB drive or some sort of retrieval online through PSN.
Thanks, more questions to come I'm sure
1) My bro just got a PS3, as I have one. Are saves linked to Users like they are on 360 profiles? I want to be able to play some games over at his place using my game saves.. possible? for example, games I'm currently playing: Ratchet & Clank, CoD4 MP..
2) are user profiles transferable? Can I take my user name/PSN onto his PS3 to play CoD4 or for whatever other reason. Whether this be by USB drive or some sort of retrieval online through PSN.
Thanks, more questions to come I'm sure
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
For 2, just create a new user on his system and you can log-in to your PSN account from there.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='aznguyen316']okay guys, a couple quick Q's.
1) My bro just got a PS3, as I have one. Are saves linked to Users like they are on 360 profiles? I want to be able to play some games over at his place using my game saves.. possible? for example, games I'm currently playing: Ratchet & Clank, CoD4 MP..[/quote]If it's a protected save in some way, it will only work on your profile. However, since you can download many PS3 game saves, it doesn't make a difference which profile you load them onto. There's actually an option to copy game saves directly.
1) My bro just got a PS3, as I have one. Are saves linked to Users like they are on 360 profiles? I want to be able to play some games over at his place using my game saves.. possible? for example, games I'm currently playing: Ratchet & Clank, CoD4 MP..[/quote]If it's a protected save in some way, it will only work on your profile. However, since you can download many PS3 game saves, it doesn't make a difference which profile you load them onto. There's actually an option to copy game saves directly.
Unfortunately, not really, but you can create another profile on the console, and log in your PSN name with it (but do not save the password). Also, if you were to do that, you can share PSN games onto his console also, but that's another story.
aznguyen316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 49 (100%)
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']For 2, just create a new user on his system and you can log-in to your PSN account from there.[/quote]
thanks dude.. are CoD4 stats saved on servers or is it on the save file?
edit. also thanks TMK for your response.. I may have to do some testing later
thanks dude.. are CoD4 stats saved on servers or is it on the save file?
edit. also thanks TMK for your response.. I may have to do some testing later
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Not sure. You could probably try to create a new user on your PS3 and log-in to your PSN account there and see if it your stats carry over since the saves don't carry over to new users.
Stats are on a server. I reformatted my HD and went right into playing CoD online, and it had all my stats and rank.
Only things that seems to be saved on the HD are your clan tag and name of your weapon load outs in regards to online.
It was gone when with the "blank HD" my clan tag was gone, but when I restored my system it came back.
As far as weapon load outs, I'm guessing they are also saved on some server because they were all the same as before the formating, but they didn't have names. After I restored the names returned.
>>>PS I still need help finding an e-mail/number to contact for support with this game.
Only things that seems to be saved on the HD are your clan tag and name of your weapon load outs in regards to online.
It was gone when with the "blank HD" my clan tag was gone, but when I restored my system it came back.
As far as weapon load outs, I'm guessing they are also saved on some server because they were all the same as before the formating, but they didn't have names. After I restored the names returned.
>>>PS I still need help finding an e-mail/number to contact for support with this game.
endlessPRO
Banned
can certain JP version games play on US consoles since I see disgaea 3 for ps3 jp version can play on a US console one.
is this true ?
is this true ?
[quote name='endlessPRO']can certain JP version games play on US consoles since I see disgaea 3 for ps3 jp version can play on a US console one.
is this true ?[/quote]
Yeah games can be played on any system, regardless of their original region on the PSP/PS3.
is this true ?[/quote]
Yeah games can be played on any system, regardless of their original region on the PSP/PS3.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='endlessPRO']can certain JP version games play on US consoles since I see disgaea 3 for ps3 jp version can play on a US console one.
is this true ?[/QUOTE]You should probably make a JP account and get some of their content.
is this true ?[/QUOTE]You should probably make a JP account and get some of their content.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='NamPaehc']Yeah games can be played on any system, regardless of their original region on the PSP/PS3.[/QUOTE]
To the poster who asked that question, that's only refering to Playstation 3 games if I'm not mistaken. Playstation 1 and 2 games are still region locked.
[quote name='geko29']
It absolutely is easier, and it works just like you said. You take the output from the frame buffer, and scale it. You don't have to de-interlace it, or do a 3:2:2 pulldown or anything. Just take a static image, and make it bigger. Easy as pie. Microsoft paint can do it. Then just repeat 29 more times. [/quote]
That's NOT easier. Either the CPU or the GPU are going to have to take that output and write it into video RAM at a higher resolution. That's not getting done for "free" like it is on the 360 or an upscaling DVD player. It has to be specifically coded into a piece of software, and will affect performance more than having an external piece of hardware do it (like in the 360's case).
And I'm not sure if you were saying that most TVs won't do HD resolutions...because they do. Some older tvs marketed as "HD Ready" or "HD Monitors" didn't handle every ATSC resolution, but anything marketed as an HDTV should, and as far as I'm aware does (unless like you said they're cheating by basically displaying 1080i as 1/4 the resolution on a 1080p native set.)
I'm somewhere in the middle on this. I can see the frustration of people with older sets that can't do the scaling, but I can see how Sony wouldn't want to have to include more hardware, and would think that going forward it won't be as big of an issue. Like I said, I really think anyone buying an early HD set of some sort should have known that at some point you'd probably need to be able to handle the ATSC resolutions. I know one of the reasons I waited was because the sets I was seeing didn't, and I just figured I'd need them.
Yeah, I mean I kind of agree, but then including hardware to be backwards compatible with the Playstation 2 is also cheap, and they're cheaping out on that (and for myself personally I'd much rather have that).
It's not 10% of the audience. I'd be shocked if the majority of TVs sold that do HD don't do the ATSC resolutions. Early adopters who got TVs that don't don't make up most of the market (although a lot of the early adopters of higher resolution TVs would be early adopters of the Playstation 3 I suppose...)
I'd guess that the very smallest part of the Playstation 3 audience would be people with HD monitors that don't handle 720p. I'd be shocked if they're not outnumbered both by people with HDTVs AND people trying to run it on an SDTV.
Even if that's true, it's still the game itself that's having to handle the conversion. It's not like a switch that can be flipped to turn it on.
Not sure how you got that idea. I've owned (FOUR) 360s since launch. And I'm defending this because I don't think you're being completely fair about this. You think this is affecting a huge percentage of people, and I just don't think it is-it's early adopters. I can understand why you'd want a scaler in this, but I don't think it's reasonable to call this a "up".
That number is just bogus. This isn't 1998. Most people who own HDTVs have purchased them pretty recently, which means they avoided the whole "HD Monitor" era. And again, anyone had to expect that they would need every ATSC resolution at some point. I'm trying to not act like an ass here, but you've got to take some blame here too.
I really don't much care whether my TV or my game system is doing the scaling. If your TV has a good scaler, it shouldn't much matter (and IMO any of us who play games need to pick up a TV with a good scaler anyway, since we're going to be playing stuff at all different kinds of resolutions, plus interlaced and progressive scan, etc.). It matters for us more than some guy who's just going to watch DVDs and TV...although even there they should still go for a good scaler to be able to use whatever kind of older video hardware they want.
Yes, it does have a separate chip. It might have since been incorporated onto the GPU or something, but it started as a physically separate chip. If I'm remembering right it's called "Ana" or something like that, and there are even pictures of it. It is NOT handled by the GPU, and even if it was, you're then wasting transistors on a scaler hardware (or wasting GPU resources) that could be used on more GPU power.
That's not fair. Those upscaling DVD players for one thing don't have as hard of a job to do as the chip in the 360. That thing is having to scale HD resolutions, and it's having to do it FAST. A scaler in a DVD player is only having to do 480i, and there could be some kind of lag and it wouldn't matter. Like I've said, I think that's a nice feature Microsoft added, and ideally the Playstation 3 would have it to. But I do not think it's this gigantic massive, system-wrecking problem that you think it is. You had to know when you bought that TV that future game systems might not work on it if it didn't support all HD resolutions. I'm coming from PC games too and I just expect a monitor or TV to usually be the device that's handling that sort of conversion, and I expect it to do a good job. So it's kind of a perspective thing.
No, I think it's nice they added those features, but those are all SOFTWARE issues that could be developed once and rolled out with no further increase to the system's cost. Adding a scaler chip to the Playstation 3 is HARDWARE that they'd have to keep adding, and it's doing it to an already very expensive system. IMO the priorities of having backwards compatibility, higher-end hardware, and Blu Ray were all more important places to spend transistors/money (and the Playstation 3 already had a drive that was hundreds more, and a CPU that's something like 50% larger if I'm remembering right). I totally acknowledge that that's just my perspective and not really right or wrong, but it's a decision someone had to make, and I can understand why they made it. I can sympathize with you and others with this issue. I can see how it's a mistake, and I bet there was internal discussion about it, but I just don't believe it's this huge massive gigantic, unforgivable thing...but then like I said, it's a perspective thing, and I specifically avoided earlier HD screens as I expected something like this would happen.
To the poster who asked that question, that's only refering to Playstation 3 games if I'm not mistaken. Playstation 1 and 2 games are still region locked.
[quote name='geko29']
It absolutely is easier, and it works just like you said. You take the output from the frame buffer, and scale it. You don't have to de-interlace it, or do a 3:2:2 pulldown or anything. Just take a static image, and make it bigger. Easy as pie. Microsoft paint can do it. Then just repeat 29 more times. [/quote]
That's NOT easier. Either the CPU or the GPU are going to have to take that output and write it into video RAM at a higher resolution. That's not getting done for "free" like it is on the 360 or an upscaling DVD player. It has to be specifically coded into a piece of software, and will affect performance more than having an external piece of hardware do it (like in the 360's case).
And I'm not sure if you were saying that most TVs won't do HD resolutions...because they do. Some older tvs marketed as "HD Ready" or "HD Monitors" didn't handle every ATSC resolution, but anything marketed as an HDTV should, and as far as I'm aware does (unless like you said they're cheating by basically displaying 1080i as 1/4 the resolution on a 1080p native set.)
I'm somewhere in the middle on this. I can see the frustration of people with older sets that can't do the scaling, but I can see how Sony wouldn't want to have to include more hardware, and would think that going forward it won't be as big of an issue. Like I said, I really think anyone buying an early HD set of some sort should have known that at some point you'd probably need to be able to handle the ATSC resolutions. I know one of the reasons I waited was because the sets I was seeing didn't, and I just figured I'd need them.
Yeah, I mean I kind of agree, but then including hardware to be backwards compatible with the Playstation 2 is also cheap, and they're cheaping out on that (and for myself personally I'd much rather have that).
It's not 10% of the audience. I'd be shocked if the majority of TVs sold that do HD don't do the ATSC resolutions. Early adopters who got TVs that don't don't make up most of the market (although a lot of the early adopters of higher resolution TVs would be early adopters of the Playstation 3 I suppose...)
I'd guess that the very smallest part of the Playstation 3 audience would be people with HD monitors that don't handle 720p. I'd be shocked if they're not outnumbered both by people with HDTVs AND people trying to run it on an SDTV.
Even if that's true, it's still the game itself that's having to handle the conversion. It's not like a switch that can be flipped to turn it on.
However, I'm not trying to get into an inter-console pissing match here. I have and enjoy both (One 360 and three PS3s). Your previous posts have led me to believe that you have neither (and certainly not the one you're so vehemently defending now). They both have plenty of failings. But somehow pointing out the failings of one of them is verboten? A
Not sure how you got that idea. I've owned (FOUR) 360s since launch. And I'm defending this because I don't think you're being completely fair about this. You think this is affecting a huge percentage of people, and I just don't think it is-it's early adopters. I can understand why you'd want a scaler in this, but I don't think it's reasonable to call this a "
up".That number is just bogus. This isn't 1998. Most people who own HDTVs have purchased them pretty recently, which means they avoided the whole "HD Monitor" era. And again, anyone had to expect that they would need every ATSC resolution at some point. I'm trying to not act like an ass here, but you've got to take some blame here too.
I really don't much care whether my TV or my game system is doing the scaling. If your TV has a good scaler, it shouldn't much matter (and IMO any of us who play games need to pick up a TV with a good scaler anyway, since we're going to be playing stuff at all different kinds of resolutions, plus interlaced and progressive scan, etc.). It matters for us more than some guy who's just going to watch DVDs and TV...although even there they should still go for a good scaler to be able to use whatever kind of older video hardware they want.
Yes, it does have a separate chip. It might have since been incorporated onto the GPU or something, but it started as a physically separate chip. If I'm remembering right it's called "Ana" or something like that, and there are even pictures of it. It is NOT handled by the GPU, and even if it was, you're then wasting transistors on a scaler hardware (or wasting GPU resources) that could be used on more GPU power.
That's not fair. Those upscaling DVD players for one thing don't have as hard of a job to do as the chip in the 360. That thing is having to scale HD resolutions, and it's having to do it FAST. A scaler in a DVD player is only having to do 480i, and there could be some kind of lag and it wouldn't matter. Like I've said, I think that's a nice feature Microsoft added, and ideally the Playstation 3 would have it to. But I do not think it's this gigantic massive, system-wrecking problem that you think it is. You had to know when you bought that TV that future game systems might not work on it if it didn't support all HD resolutions. I'm coming from PC games too and I just expect a monitor or TV to usually be the device that's handling that sort of conversion, and I expect it to do a good job. So it's kind of a perspective thing.
No, I think it's nice they added those features, but those are all SOFTWARE issues that could be developed once and rolled out with no further increase to the system's cost. Adding a scaler chip to the Playstation 3 is HARDWARE that they'd have to keep adding, and it's doing it to an already very expensive system. IMO the priorities of having backwards compatibility, higher-end hardware, and Blu Ray were all more important places to spend transistors/money (and the Playstation 3 already had a drive that was hundreds more, and a CPU that's something like 50% larger if I'm remembering right). I totally acknowledge that that's just my perspective and not really right or wrong, but it's a decision someone had to make, and I can understand why they made it. I can sympathize with you and others with this issue. I can see how it's a mistake, and I bet there was internal discussion about it, but I just don't believe it's this huge massive gigantic, unforgivable thing...but then like I said, it's a perspective thing, and I specifically avoided earlier HD screens as I expected something like this would happen.
bornrunnin31
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
If you guys are going to continue to argue about HD, can you please take it to the VS forum?
If someone is watching a DVD/BD on their PS3 are they shown as being "online" on my friends list? Or will it say "Watching a movie" or something like that?
[quote name='bornrunnin31']If you guys are going to continue to argue about HD, can you please take it to the VS forum?[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote name='bornrunnin31']If you guys are going to continue to argue about HD, can you please take it to the VS forum?[/quote]
Thank you.
DestroVega
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmachine']If someone is watching a DVD/BD on their PS3 are they shown as being "online" on my friends list? Or will it say "Watching a movie" or something like that?
Thank you.[/quote]
Shows they are online but no description is shown.
Thank you.[/quote]
Shows they are online but no description is shown.
B
Blackout
Guest
If I change the email for my PSN account I won't lose any information/stats will I?
endlessPRO
Banned
can you play import ps2 games if I made a japanese PSN account or is that only ps3
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='endlessPRO']can you play import ps2 games if I made a japanese PSN account or is that only ps3[/QUOTE]Nope, since the hardware is region locked for PS1 and PS2 disc games (PS1 downloads are region free).
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
It's from the media server feature.
bread's done