Print

[decapkris]

The HDDVD add on appearance does look disapointing. Kinda reminds me of the shape you get old books in.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ May 10 2006, 09:19 AM)

I don't know why everyone is so fueled over a lack of HDMI.  I personally don't think it does anything special beyond bringing digital interface to the market (which may reduce interference).  It costs a hell of a lot more to licence and the cables are as much, if not more than optical.  On top of that, they don't even have the spec worked out fully in regards to HDCP.  Seriously, I prefer the component connections.  Then I don't feel like Hollywood is looking over my shoulder all the time.  I just make sure that there is minimal interference and my contacts are clean.  Can someone capable explain something that I am apparently missing?

The biggest difference is that HDMI and DVI are not compressed at all, the data stream is essentially RAW, it exactly specifies the exact color of each and every pixel. Component video and even VGA is compressed (component much more then VGA). Not only that the data being sent is really just a "fuzzy idea" of what the resultant picture should look like, and it's left up to the display to interpret that and decide what color each and every pixel should be.

HOWEVER IIRC HDCP compresses the digital signal to make room for the "protection" So really what we want is HDMI but without HDCP. Part of the reason behind wanting to nuder the resolution without HDCP is to make HDMI with HDCP look superior (despite the fact that its really not)

98% of HDTV owners probably don't even have their displays properly calibrated nevermind be able to tell the difference between a digital source and an analog source once it hits the screen. (infact most probably prefer analog because it zooms and stretches better, particularly when getting 4:3 content onto a widescreen.

IIRC the 360's encoder is 100% analog for this very reason. So when you set it to 4:3 480i or 1080i when the source is 720p it has a much easier time scaling and stretching because the signal is analog instead of digital. On the 360 even if HDMI output is added the quality wont really be any better because the encoder chip is still processing in analog and it would simply be re-converted to digital after the fact.

I have no idea of maybe they can write some new firmware for the encoder that would allow a straight through connection of the RAW digital data for HDMI output, but somehow I doubt it.

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ May 10 2006, 09:19 AM)

...The decision to go proprietary WUSB is paying off in spades.  And to answer the question above, WUSB can connect upto 256 devices (I think, someone confirm) so the headset doesn't need a dongle...  

The 360 doesn't actually use WUSB, they originally did then dropped it for their own proprietary spin-off. In any case, yes the official wireless headsets talk directly to the console. So you could literally use them without any controller at all.

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ May 10 2006, 09:19 AM)

Does anyone know if the camera is wireless?  I want to know if I can stick it anywhere during gameplay.  I sit pretty far away from my TV and I don't want people seeing my entire (messy) room on Live.  I'd love for this to come in at $40, but I'm sure it will be upwards of $80, especially if it's wireless.

The camera is NOT wireless, it comes with a 9' USB cord I believe, I don't think having it wireless would be too important seeing as it's not an item that would get moved much if at all. A controller is constantly being moved around, as is a headset, a camera gets put somewhere and typically stays there. Considering it's wired if it's more then $50 it's a rip-off IMO.

[sinister slipknot]

I dunno, I could see MS making another A/V plug and put a HMDI connection in it, simular to how the optical cable is. As for the wireless headset I think it just connects to the console wirelessly, without any dongles or anything. The headset better be rechargable though, that'd suck having to buy replacment batteries for the headset.

[Jstraw]

I've been an Xbox fan all the way, but I can say, digital all the way sounds good to me!   i have the entertainment system that is pushing for all digital, when I heard the 360 is analog I felt like we jumped backwards.  It would be foolish for MS to not allow for HDMI/DVI support.  I feel the interest in PS3 becoming influenced by their slogan "Digital all the Way".  IT MAKES SENCE to have digital options for a new component that the masses are interested in, which is HIGH DEFINITION!  Digital inputs definitely make component inputs look bad.  You can argue or flame all you want, but colors and clarity are definitly better matched and look awsome through a digital connection.  Make a better choice MS and stop ripping us from the quality yoou preach to have given us!!!

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ May 10 2006, 11:21 AM)

The biggest difference is that HDMI and DVI are not compressed at all, the data stream is essentially RAW, it exactly specifies the exact color of each and every pixel. Component video and even VGA is compressed (component much more then VGA). Not only that the data being sent is really just a "fuzzy idea" of what the resultant picture should look like, and it's left up to the display to interpret that and decide what color each and every pixel should be.

HOWEVER IIRC HDCP compresses the digital signal to make room for the "protection" So really what we want is HDMI but without HDCP. Part of the reason behind wanting to nuder the resolution without HDCP is to make HDMI with HDCP look superior (despite the fact that its really not)

98% of HDTV owners probably don't even have their displays properly calibrated nevermind be able to tell the difference between a digital source and an analog source once it hits the screen. (infact most probably prefer analog because it zooms and stretches better, particularly when getting 4:3 content onto a widescreen.

IIRC the 360's encoder is 100% analog for this very reason. So when you set it to 4:3 480i or 1080i when the source is 720p it has a much easier time scaling and stretching because the signal is analog instead of digital. On the 360 even if HDMI output is added the quality wont really be any better because the encoder chip is still processing in analog and it would simply be re-converted to digital after the fact.

I have no idea of maybe they can write some new firmware for the encoder that would allow a straight through connection of the RAW digital data for HDMI output, but somehow I doubt it.

Honestly, is HDMI (with HDCP... since it doesn't really come any other way) THAT important?  I mean, I have an HDMI port on my HDTV, so I'm not totally against its use.  I just question whether it provides any descernable difference in quality.  720p is 720p isn't it?   I'll assume the simple answer is no.  Currently, I use DVI on my LCD PC monitor and the text looks a shitload better than the text on my HDTV.  Is this the basic reason why?  If it's THAT much of a difference, I'm all about HDMI... but it still irks me about the HDCP.

QUOTE

The 360 doesn't actually use WUSB, they originally did then dropped it for their own proprietary spin-off. In any case, yes the official wireless headsets talk directly to the console. So you could literally use them without any controller at all.

So it's a WUSB-ripoff?  I'll assume it still uses the 256 channels tech that was talked about during the unveiling... I'm just stoked that the wireless headsets are coming.  I'll definitely be plunking down cash for those.

QUOTE

The camera is NOT wireless, it comes with a 9' USB cord I believe, I don't think having it wireless would be too important seeing as it's not an item that would get moved much if at all. A controller is constantly being moved around, as is a headset, a camera gets put somewhere and typically stays there. Considering it's wired if it's more then $50 it's a rip-off IMO.

Hmmm, that sucks.  I guess I'll be sitting closer to my TV then.  9 feet won't cut it unless there is a zoom feature on the thing.  Considering the lack of wireless, I'll agree... $50 is too much.  Then again, Logitech's entire lineup of 1.3MP webcams never dip below $80...

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ May 10 2006, 01:33 PM)

Deep in the back of my mind I KNEW you'd be the one to answer my questions Twisted.  
Honestly, is HDMI (with HDCP... since it doesn't really come any other way) THAT important?  I mean, I have an HDMI port on my HDTV, so I'm not totally against its use.  I just question whether it provides any descernable difference in quality.  720p is 720p isn't it?   I'll assume the simple answer is no.  Currently, I use DVI on my LCD PC monitor and the text looks a shitload better than the text on my HDTV.  Is this the basic reason why?  If it's THAT much of a difference, I'm all about HDMI... but it still irks me about the HDCP.

With the exception of the HDCP protection, the DVI going to your computer's LCD is using the same exact signal protocol.

Go grab a VGA cable and switch between the two (if your video card and monitor have both outputs you can easily switch with the push of a button on your monitor)... that will give you a good idea on what the differences are.

Component is slightly lower in quality to VGA, the color space is a little different, and the sync signals have been separated out, really the differences is negligible so the VGA to DVI should serve as a perfect example.

One thing you'll probably notice right away, is that using a DVI (or HDMI) you NEVER need to adjust the picture geometry on something like an LCD, because as I said before it defines each and every pixel. using a digital format would also remedy any picture stretching issues when trying to run widescreen content on a 1:1 pc monitor.

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ May 10 2006, 01:33 PM)

Hmmm, that sucks.  I guess I'll be sitting closer to my TV then.  9 feet won't cut it unless there is a zoom feature on the thing.  Considering the lack of wireless, I'll agree... $50 is too much.  Then again, Logitech's entire lineup of 1.3MP webcams never dip below $80...

you can always get a USB extender, the spec allows for up to 15' on a passive connection. Wireless might be a little better if you sit further away,  for me it's 14' from my screen to my coffee table, but then again it's a home theater room and you wouldn't be able to see anything with the camera anyway because the room would be completely dark  

I would guess that MS will price the "vision" competitively with the eye-toy and/or slightly higher then the Xbox1's webcam (released only in Japan for those who are scratching their heads).

[thax]

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ May 10 2006, 06:33 PM)

Deep in the back of my mind I KNEW you'd be the one to answer my questions Twisted.  :lol:Honestly, is HDMI (with HDCP... since it doesn't really come any other way) THAT important?  I mean, I have an HDMI port on my HDTV, so I'm not totally against its use.  I just question whether it provides any descernable difference in quality.  720p is 720p isn't it?   I'll assume the simple answer is no.

The problem is when they enable HDCP on HD-DVD discs the display will downsample the output to 540p and from what I have heard it also adds some noise for good measure. You will only see the true high definition signal if the entire chain of devices transmits an encrypted digital signal.

Currently this functionality has not been enabled on current DVD's, but from what I hear they will enable it a year or two down the road. This reason being is that many early HD displays are not compliant will will display an inferior quality image, thus slowing adoption of HD-DVD and Blu-ray. These people will get a nice surprise down the road when this find out one of thier components isn't compliant and they have to replace it.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(thax @ May 10 2006, 04:11 PM)

The problem is when they enable HDCP on HD-DVD discs the display will downsample the output to 540p and from what I have heard it also adds some noise for good measure. You will only see the true high definition signal if the entire chain of devices transmits an encrypted digital signal.

Currently this functionality has not been enabled on current DVD's, but from what I hear they will enable it a year or two down the road. This reason being is that many early HD displays are not compliant will will display an inferior quality image, thus slowing adoption of HD-DVD and Blu-ray. These people will get a nice surprise down the road when this find out one of thier components isn't compliant and they have to replace it.

yeah but... there are already companies in China pumping out little black boxes that strip out the HDCP encryption   So much for protection.

When will these companies learn that if someone wants to crack the outer protective shell to get to the gooey nougat center of the data they will ALWAYS. All DRM does is hinder the expereince of your paying customers.

[rippinitto]

QUOTE(patrick2269 @ May 10 2006, 08:12 AM)

Maybe here?

why does it have 2 usb2.0 and 1 mini-usb???

[Morlok8k]

QUOTE(rippinitto @ May 10 2006, 01:59 PM)

why does it have 2 usb2.0 and 1 mini-usb???

The Mini USB goes to the 360, the Wireless adapter plugs into one of the ports and the camera into the other.

[0794]

I'm only really interested in the wireless headset as long as it works well and lasts long without recharging.

HD-DVD nor Blu-Ray has yet to impress me, I wonder how long it will be until we see those discs in the stores with content actually worth buying?

[amb7247]

Tell me this is the average person really gonna see a difference of component vs HDMI on a 27" or a 32" TV? I have a pretty nice receiver (Onkyo TX-SR702B) it does colors well and the 360 does pretty darn good 480p on m 27" HD ready tv/monitor.

[amb7247]

correct

[sinister slipknot]

QUOTE(reyesdaze @ May 11 2006, 04:56 AM)

quick question, isnt the lower priced ps3 not coming with hdmi?

quick question, isnt the lower priced ps3 not coming with hdmi?

QUOTE(amb7247 @ May 11 2006, 05:01 AM)

correct

It's quite stupid of Sony really, atleast with the Core 360 you could build up your accessories like the hdd, wireless pads etc, i think that may be an issue which could possibly stunt the ps3's sales, as not everybody wants to pay $600 just to have a console that has HDMI.

[krims0n]

Does anyone know if the wireless receiver for the PC will handle the input of more than 1 controller at a time? Or will we need one receiver per controller in use?