PDA

View Full Version : Questions about 360 resolutions on 16:10 22" screen


Pages : [1] 2

HiCZoK4
03-26-10, 03:21 PM
I posted this on GT this morning(Not to bother You guys with my constant questions:D) but they doesnt seem to even notice topic. So as always I come here:cool:


""""Hi. I recently got an Elite and BigBen VGA cable.

I have it hooked up to 226bw (22inch TN panel with 16:10 aspect)

I am using 1680:1050 res all the time(which is my screen native) but I have some questions anyway.

360 is 1280:720 native right? So if I have choosen any other res it have to scale. And questions are:

1)Does it consume any power to do the scaling? You know. Is it possible that 1680:1050 is any slower than 1280:720?

2)Quality. If its 1280:720 streched to 1680:1050 then quality should be the same on both resolutions right? I am asking becouse Its hard to do the comprasion not having screen by screen.

3)Black bars on 16:10res. I am mostly allright with those but using 1280:720 (or even better 1280:768) resoluts in a little streched screen but on full screen, So I am considering what too choose, And I would prefer full screen If it wasnt too streched or blurred

Btw. Vertically and The Darkness is AWESOME GAME! I just had an opportunity to play it(just btw).

and maybe one additional question:
Circles around analogs are gathering white plastic dust(from moving analogs)... I hate it:P What is Your soltuion to this
Anyone to share his thoughts?:P""""""

I think I have been asking about this more than year ago but asking again doesnt hurt. Waitinh for Cranigerrus rex and Nekro to star saying that I should get ps3 instead :bleh:

Lyme
03-26-10, 08:16 PM
The 360 doesn't have 'native' resolutions, but rather preferred ones depending on the game your playing. It also contains a dedicated scaler chip, so you shouldn't see any performance hit from running an irregular rez.

ViN86
03-27-10, 12:46 AM
The 360 doesn't have 'native' resolutions, but rather preferred ones depending on the game your playing. It also contains a dedicated scaler chip, so you shouldn't see any performance hit from running an irregular rez.

Bingo.

crainger
03-27-10, 02:14 AM
I also confirm that Lyme has posted the truth.

Also The Darkness is a great game.

HiCZoK4
03-27-10, 02:30 AM
Ok great. How does that chip works? It must be **** if it isnt used in pc's?

And about playing without black up an bottom borders.The only 16:10 res are 1440:900 and 1680:1050(my native) But those give me black borders. So there is a couple of "normal" resolutions to choose and I get full screen on every of theme.

Now I am trying to see a quality and image stretching differences between those.

1280:720 and 1280:768 looks the same to my eye although I would expect the second one to be something less stretched than 1280:720

then there is 1280:1024 and it also looks the same as 1280:720 although it should give 5:4 aspect...

I am getting really confused here:confused: And there are black depth options. Standard looks too bright and washed out. Intermediate is A bit less washed out and Expanded seems to have best dark, colours but is sometimes too dark(but I am using it anyway for now)

I will try to get a pictures comprasion of my display if I manage to take the same photos

crainger
03-27-10, 02:40 AM
It's not used in PCs as it would drive up the costs of already expensive PC hardware. In terms of money and power consumption and card size. On top of that. Do you know any PC gamers that run at a res lower than their LCD?

If you want to go without black bars set it to a 16:9 res, HOWEVER you then will be using the 360 scaler AND your monitors scaler. Which will look like big ass! The idea of the 360 scaler is to avoid the monitors crappy scaler, but you'll get black bars on a 16:10 display.

As for black depth, well that's more a fault with your display, and perhaps the 360 scaler. Honestly though. Don't expect perfection. 360 is made for TVs. Using it with a PC monitor will always give less than desirable results.

Sorry I can't defend your decision to buy a 360.

HiCZoK4
03-27-10, 03:08 AM
:lol: Thanks for swift Crainger reply! No, don't get me wrong. Picture looks really good scaled or not. Just like playing on my pc. Also 226bw does very good scaling job and picture isn't any fuzzy or whatever.

I guess I would be as happy as I am now with 360 if I bough a ps3. Its just a personal preference, so no fight here(most of games are multiplay anyway). But Dualshoc3 is ass imo and I can't get a good grip on it while 360 controller fits me like a glove. But again no offense;)

And You said 360 is made for TV's mainly... That is right, but unlike Sony, MS is selling VGA cables and added common display resolutions and that black settings thingy just for those who are using vga ora are hooked to normal display.

NarcissistZero
03-27-10, 03:36 AM
Picture looks really good scaled or not. Just like playing on my pc.

Har.

crainger
03-27-10, 04:58 AM
:lol: Thanks for swift Crainger reply! No, don't get me wrong. Picture looks really good scaled or not. Just like playing on my pc. Also 226bw does very good scaling job and picture isn't any fuzzy or whatever.

I guess I would be as happy as I am now with 360 if I bough a ps3. Its just a personal preference, so no fight here(most of games are multiplay anyway). But Dualshoc3 is ass imo and I can't get a good grip on it while 360 controller fits me like a glove. But again no offense;)

And You said 360 is made for TV's mainly... That is right, but unlike Sony, MS is selling VGA cables and added common display resolutions and that black settings thingy just for those who are using vga ora are hooked to normal display.

Yeah, I guess it is your preference, but I just checked the Internet and you're wrong. ::(:

Sorry.

Lyme
03-27-10, 03:24 PM
The scaler used in the 360 does a good job of scaling (there are actually two variants).

The first version can be found on 360s without a hdmi port and had a focus on non-digital outputs. That being said I have a 3rd party vga connector that I use with mine.

The second version is found on 360s with a hdmi port and does a slightly better job with higher resolution digital outputs (like hdmi).

It is important for the best picture to ensure that your 360 is set to output at the native resolution of what ever display device you are using. It is also well known that the scaler in the 360 does a better job than those included in most tv/monitors.

The PS3 on the other hand does not have a dedicated scaler, and expects that the one in your tv is of a pretty high quality. Sadly a lot of them are not.

HiCZoK4
03-27-10, 03:37 PM
So if I want best quality then 1680:1050
But if I dont want borders plus a little lower quality then 1280:720

Thx

jlippo
03-28-10, 05:51 AM
Xenos does the actual scaling unlike the earlier reports suggested.

HiCZoK4
03-28-10, 11:35 AM
I compared 1280:720:768:1024 and those all looks Exactly the same. Nothing is changed. Nor aspect, nor quality.

I guess then 1280:720 should be my option if I don't want to paly around with black borders.

Now I will have to check VGA vs DVI. It is VGA cable but i happen to have VGA->DVI connector. Maybe there will be a difference

crainger
03-28-10, 01:40 PM
No. There wont. DVI can't magically add quality if the signal starts as VGA.

Lyme
03-28-10, 02:16 PM
Fine, MS lied, http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2007/01/headstart.ars/2

HiCZoK4
03-28-10, 03:13 PM
No. There wont. DVI can't magically add quality if the signal starts as VGA.

You are absolutly right Mr. Crainger. Iam allright with vga anyway. Ok I have to stop this **** and go play something rather than beating about the bush

ViN86
03-28-10, 04:18 PM
That article says the 360 is ahead of the PS3, but I still think Uncharted and Uncharted 2 demolish anything the 360 offers in terms of graphics. That being said, I can't really tell a difference between the graphics of the same game on the consoles.

But PC vs. consoles is another story entirely lol.

HiCZoK4
03-29-10, 10:29 AM
Article says about overall technology and "scaler"

It makes 360 more accesible to more people with more different displays. Thats what it says. And I agree. 1280:720 upscaled to 1680:1050 looks almost as good as "real" 1680:1050

ViN86
03-29-10, 11:09 AM
Article says about overall technology and "scaler"

It makes 360 more accesible to more people with more different displays. Thats what it says. And I agree. 1280:720 upscaled to 1680:1050 looks almost as good as "real" 1680:1050

That's true for moving images, but static images will still look like **** if you scale it up too much.

HiCZoK4
03-30-10, 11:52 AM
So You are saying that I should leave 360 res to 1280:720 and do my display scaling ?

Or otherwise... Set 360 to do the 1680:1050 scaling?(Which I have right now)

ViN86
03-30-10, 12:38 PM
So You are saying that I should leave 360 res to 1280:720 and do my display scaling ?

Or otherwise... Set 360 to do the 1680:1050 scaling?(Which I have right now)

Just leave it the way you have it. The 360's scaler is probably better than your monitor's. I was saying that the scaler works well for fast moving games, but it's a terrible idea on PC's. You should only use the scaler if you have to, hence why it's used on consoles.

crainger
03-30-10, 01:58 PM
If the 360 scaler is so great set it to 1680x1050.

Toss3
03-30-10, 02:54 PM
Upscaling of any form isn't really ideal. If Microsoft cared about "High-Definition" they would have made a console capable of running its games at 1080p from the start. Also PCs don't need hardware scalers because any modern GPU is capable of scaling the image to the monitor's native resolution without issues.

Oh and to answer your question - it is better to let the Xbox360 do the scaling.

ViN86
03-30-10, 02:57 PM
Upscaling of any form isn't really ideal. If Microsoft cared about "High-Definition" they would have made a console capable of running its games at 1080p from the start. Also PCs don't need hardware scalers because any modern GPU is capable of scaling the image to the monitor's native resolution without issues.

Oh and to answer your question - it is better to let the Xbox360 do the scaling.

Are you serious? Both consoles have GPU's that amount to practically a 7800GTX equivalent. You think they could handle 1920x1080 at a frame rate over 30 with today's newest games?

Scaler chip is the best way to keep costs down and performance up. Besides most console games native resolutions aren't even 720p. Why do people keep comparing the console and PC markets? They are not even close to the same thing. Just because they both have games doesn't make them the same thing. It's like comparing a fast food restaurant to a $100 per plate restaurant just because they both serve water. :retard:

Consoles are about low cost systems and games only. So a scaler chip makes sense and prevents consoles from costing $700. The PS3 isn't much better, it doesn't even have a built-in scaler.

Toss3
03-31-10, 02:09 AM
Are you serious? Both consoles have GPU's that amount to practically a 7800GTX equivalent. You think they could handle 1920x1080 at a frame rate over 30 with today's newest games?

Not what I said at all. I said that they should have made sure that the console would be able to play its games at 1080p.

Scaler chip is the best way to keep costs down and performance up. Besides most console games native resolutions aren't even 720p. Why do people keep comparing the console and PC markets? They are not even close to the same thing. Just because they both have games doesn't make them the same thing. It's like comparing a fast food restaurant to a $100 per plate restaurant just because they both serve water. :retard:

Scaler chips wouldn't be needed if they had a minimum res of 1080p in every game.
Oh and gaming PC = console.

Consoles are about low cost systems and games only. So a scaler chip makes sense and prevents consoles from costing $700. The PS3 isn't much better, it doesn't even have a built-in scaler.

Still I see no reason why Sony or Microsoft wouldn't have enforced a minimum resolution of 1080p for their consoles.
The Ps3 also needs no scaler as most TVs come with a built-in one already.