Major issue with Xbox 360 1080p over VGA on 24" LCD's

[PerfectCr]

:disgust:
This is really pissing me off. I posted at HDTV Arcade, AVS Forum, and xbox.com. I have a Samsung 244t 24" monitor, upon selecting 1980x1080 in the dashboard, the monitor proceeds to show me a 1440x1050 resolution. The 360 has issues with it's 1080p over VGA output, these problems need to be patched!

Apparently the Acer 24" won't work either. Check these links. We need to email MS immediately, plus I've posted this on Major Nelson's blog. I've already emailed Samsung and MS.

Anyone else?

http://www.majornelson.com/archive/2006...an-issue-with-the-fall-update.aspx#256

http://www.hdtvarcade.com/hdtvforum/index.php?showtopic=7358&st=0

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=481134

 

[Sentry2]

It works on my Westinghouse 37w3 but then again it's native res is 1920x1080.

 

[MDE]

Dumb question, what's wrong with component input?

 

[PerfectCr]

Originally posted by: MDE
Dumb question, what's wrong with component input?

It's doesn't do 1080p.

 

[Woofmeister]

I thought this was only confined to Sony LCD's. See this thread at AVS forum. Now you're saying Samsungs are affected as well.

I could see if one manufacturer's (and obviously an XBox competitor's) panels won't display 1080P using Microsoft's VGA output, but if you add Samsung to the list, Microsoft has really screwed the pooch on this one.

This is really bizarre because we've been running higher than 1080p via VGA in the personal computer industry for years. Case in point, I'm writing this on a 1920 x 1200 monitor which also has a VGA input.

Anybody else having this problem? Post here including your TV manufacturer. Let's get a list together and see if we can get an official response from Redmond.

I just can't see Microsoft conceding 1080P to the Play Station 3.

 

[PerfectCr]

http://www.hdtvarcade.com/hdtvforum/ind...f81e7&showtopic=7358&st=20&#entry73416

More issues.

 

[Sentry2]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister

Originally posted by: Sentry2
It works on my Westinghouse 37w3 but then again it's native res is 1920x1080.

Sentry, I don't think you understand. The panel's native resolution has nothing to do with it. All 1080 panels should be 1920 × 1080. If they have lower resolutions, they should not claim to be 1080P (though they can still be High Definition if they are at least 1280x720 resolution).

The problem with the XBox 1080P signal is that it uses the panel's VGA input rather than the HDMI input.

I was simply saying that I have no issues with 1080p support on the Westy and that it probably has something to do with the monitor he's using. I know all about HD guy. Again, like you said it's probably a problem with the monitors VGA input.

 

[Rage187]

Sentry2,

Can you tell the difference now that it's 1080P?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister

Originally posted by: Sentry2
It works on my Westinghouse 37w3 but then again it's native res is 1920x1080.

Sentry, I don't think you understand. The panel's native resolution has nothing to do with it. All 1080 panels should be 1920 × 1080. If they have lower resolutions, they should not claim to be 1080P (though they can still be High Definition if they are at least 1280x720 resolution).

The problem with the XBox 1080P signal is that it uses the panel's VGA input rather than the HDMI input.

Monitors can claim to be capable of 1080p if they accept 1920x1080 in but scale it to a lower res. Likewise, they can claim to be 1080 while only support 1080i. Anyhow, I would just set the 360's output to match the native res of your monitor, that would likely give you the best image quality.

 

[rbV5]

Wrong. By definition, a 1080P monitor must display at a minimum resolution of 1920x1080. As I said, in my original post, a monitor that accepts a 1080 signal and converts to a lower resolution may be High Definition, but it is not 1080P.

How about a link? 1080p is a marketing term and can mean whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean.

Among the television sets with a 1080p resolution, however, some are not capable of both accepting and reproducing a 1080p input signal, especially via a digital input such as Digital Visual Interface (DVI) or High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI).[

Wiki

There are already a large number of 1080p HDTV sets on the market, which upconvert all incoming signals, including standard-definition TVs, DVDs, HDTVs and PCs, to their panels? native resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. Ironically, these 1080p televisions can not accept a 1080p signal. Yes, you read that correctly.

Link


More here
1080P ? Time for a Reality Check!

 

[xtreme26]

Originally posted by: PerfectCr

Originally posted by: MDE
Dumb question, what's wrong with component input?

It's doesn't do 1080p.

Yes it does

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Wrong. By definition, a 1080P monitor must display at a minimum resolution of 1920x1080. As I said, in my original post, a monitor that accepts a 1080 signal and converts to a lower resolution may be High Definition, but it is not 1080P.

How about a link? 1080p is a marketing term and can mean whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean.

Among the television sets with a 1080p resolution, however, some are not capable of both accepting and reproducing a 1080p input signal, especially via a digital input such as Digital Visual Interface (DVI) or High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI).[

Wiki

There are already a large number of 1080p HDTV sets on the market, which upconvert all incoming signals, including standard-definition TVs, DVDs, HDTVs and PCs, to their panels? native resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. Ironically, these 1080p televisions can not accept a 1080p signal. Yes, you read that correctly.

Link


More here
1080P ? Time for a Reality Check!

But there are "true" 720p broadcasts right?

 

[rbV5]

But there are "true" 720p broadcasts right?

Sure, 720p is a defacto ATSC broadcast standard, but even then it doesn't mean that HD material is being broadcast. Perfect example is watching a HD broadcast of NFL football....not all those cameras are HD and it's obvious.

720p when describing a product, is a marketing term, not a standard at all.

Manufacturers use consumer confusion and the lack of standards/product specifications to their advantage, so you simply cannot rely on the manufacturers marketing material.

 

[rbV5]

No! No! No! Whether or not a 1080 (progressive or interlaced) panel can actually accept a 1080P signal via whichever input is used without downconverting to 540p first, it's resolution must have at least 1080 pixels of vertical resolution. 1080 is an objective standard, not a marketing term. A manufacturer who sells a 1080P panel that has a native vertical resolution lower than 1080 pixels is committing a fraud. It would be like selling an engine with seven cylinders as a V8

Feel free to back up your ascertations with "facts". For instance, Only CRT's with 9" guns (premium, high end) can fully resolve 1080i, are you saying that most consumer CRT RPTV's were fraudulently sold to consumers?

I'd like to see this standard that manufacturers are being held to that you are talking about.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Way to change the subject. The issue is resolution and it's an objective standard. Show me a video display of any kind advertising itself as "1080p" that has a resolution of less than 1080 pixels vertical.

Change the subject?

Is it:

The panel's native resolution has nothing to do with it. All 1080 panels should be 1920 × 1080. If they have lower resolutions, they should not claim to be 1080P

or is it

Show me a video display of any kind advertising itself as "1080p" that has a resolution of less than 1080 pixels vertical.[/

You've redifined 1080p panels a couple times in this thread alone. Probably because you know that DLP's use wombulation and 960x1080 mirrors instead of 1920x1080 mirrors in a large number of "1080p" sets (or read it on one of the links I provided)

I think it would be easier for you to provide a standard that mandates a manufacturer to a specific panel pixel resolution for 1080p (if there were one) than for me to physically test all panels to count their pixels (or do you trust manufacturers specs outright?)

Is DLP wombulation fraud? Are 1080p sets that can't support 1080p input fraudulent even if they have physically 1920x1080 native pixels?

 

[TecHNooB]

Settle down smarties.

 

[xtknight]

To be 1080p the display must be able to input a 1080p signal. That's all. It doesn't mean it's actually showing 1080 lines of resolution...it could be downscaling.

I guess some marketers could say it's 1080p if they "upscale" a 1080i or 540p source as well. Somewhere along the line it's 1080p.


Anyway, the 244t never claimed to be able to input 1920x1080.

244t VESA timing table (DSP scaler-supported inputs): http://lcdresource.com/images/244t-scalerpreset.png

1920x1080->244t is possible on the PC because of the GPU's scaler. Whether the Xbox has a scaler I don't know. If not, that's why it doesn't work properly. According to the timing table, the 244t can not input a 1920x1080 signal...it must be first scaled to 1920x1200 (native) by a scaler. Why don't you see what happens when you throw the 244t a 1920x1080 signal (select monitor scaling) via your PC? 1080p is just 1920x1080@60Hz AFAIK.

 

[rbV5]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is DLP wombulation fraud?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, because (wait for it) the resulting native resolution is 1920 x 1080.

I don't think its fraud either, but clearly it is not truely progressive scan either.

My 1080i RPTV "theoretically" has a resulting resolution of 1920x1080 as well btw.

Wombulation is similar in that 2 seperate "subpictures" created by each 980 mirrors tilting back and forth once every 1/60 second(each half horizotal resolution, effectively 960x1080) combine to achieve the resultant resolution. Interlacing on the other hand uses 2 seperate "fields" created by every other scan line being drawn 1/30 second (each half vertical resolution, effectively 1920x540) to achieve the reultant resolution.

Wombulation is a trade-off for cost concerns and reduces sharpness, but also reduces screen door.

How is this statement:


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The panel's native resolution has nothing to do with it. All 1080 panels should be 1920 × 1080. If they have lower resolutions, they should not claim to be 1080P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Contradicted by this statement?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me a video display of any kind advertising itself as "1080p" that has a resolution of less than 1080 pixels vertical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The defining characteristic of 1080 is a vertical resolution of 1080 pixels. The first sentence gives the full resolution and the second one gives only the vertical. You don't need to provide a mandated standard (like, say the ATSC signal standard) when you are describing an objective characteristic of something.

It is somewhat contradicted because, while vertical resolution of 1080 may be the defining characteristic of a particular video file's resolution (example: a 1080p WMV HD video with a resolution of 1440x1080 is still 1080p).
It is most certainly not the defining characteristic of a "panel" as you alluded to prior, with both horizontal and vertical resolution used as the defining characteristics to describe a resolution. Also note that the OP isn't even refering to a 1080p display per say, but rather a "1920 x 1200" display...I'm not sure 1200p is an appropriate tag for such a display.

My real point is simply, 1080p does not mean the same thing to each manufacturer, it is not truely a standard and users would be naive to assume so.

The reality to a user is that there is a perversion of terms when used for TV's vs Broadcasting formats vs PC displays vs Media formats and manufacturers take advantage of those perversions for their marketing advantage and always have.

Some native 1920x1080 displays won't accept 1080p input signals period, some 1080p displays accept 1080p input signals and use wombulation to create 1920x1080 output and some displays accept 1080p signals and progressively scan it out to a 1920x1080 output. and so on.

When I decide to purchase a 1080p display, I'm damn sure going to carefully research my purchase with respect to my particular use and not assume anything and I'd advise anyone else to do the same.

 

[rbV5]

To be 1080p the display must be able to input a 1080p signal. That's all.

Except, thats not actually true. Very few of last years TV's marketed as 1080p sets would accept a 1080p signal at all.

Finally--and this may sound weird--but many 1080p televisions don't accept 1080p sources at all. In our experience, only the aforementioned HP can handle 1080p via its HDMI inputs--all other current 1080p HDTVs cannot. Instead, they upconvert 720p and 1080i sources to 1080p.

Link

 

[rbV5]

So, by your lights, Sony and Samsung are both wrong when they explicitly link their "1080p" designations to the fact that their panels have native resolutions of 1920x1080?

Of course they are not "wrong" because there is no industry standard, again, the very point I am making.

Yes, but our little disagreement got started after I pointed out to a poster that the fact that his Westinghouse 37w3 panel had a native resolution of 1920x1080 was not the reason why his panel was able to display the XBox 1080p signal while the Sony and Samsung 1080p panels could not. Because both the Samsung 1080p LCDs and the Sony 1080p LCDs also have native resolutions of 1920x1080.

Actually, I simply disagreed with your, as of yet unsubstantiated claim

Wrong. By definition, a 1080P monitor must display at a minimum resolution of 1920x1080. As I said, in my original post, a monitor that accepts a 1080 signal and converts to a lower resolution may be High Definition, but it is not 1080P.

For instance, "I" think a 1080p display should be able to input/output 1080p source material and fully resolve 1080i HD to be given the moniker of 1080p, but that doesn't make me correct.

I've read reviews today where 1080p sets could not deliver the full 1920x1080 when actually tested, or even resolve 1080i HD, and numerous 1080p displays that cannot accept 1080p sources at all. doesn't sound very standard to me.

 

[Woofmeister]

Back to the original point of this thread:

Fix on the way for Xbox 360 1080p problems

Microsoft just rolled out the much awaited update to the Xbox 360 dashboard including -- among other things -- support for 1080p over VGA and component but for some gamers and error screen was all they got. The company still hasn't said exactly what it believe is causing the issue, although some have said it may be due to either frequency supported by the VGA cable or the way it syncs with monitors, but Major Nelson confirmed on his podcast this morning that engineers are aware of the issue and are working on a fix. The TVs that suffer the problem appear to be some Sony (most notably LCD XBRs) and Samsung models that should be able to accept the 1080p input but as of yet, don't.

Stay tuned . . .

 

[Woofmeister]

Sorry, but I can't resist. Another manufacturer somehow comes to the strange conclusion that a panel designated 1080p must have a native resolution of 1920x1080 despite the fact that there is no "industry standard." How very odd.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Sorry, but I can't resist. Another manufacturer somehow comes to the strange conclusion that a panel designated 1080p must have a native resolution of 1920x1080 despite the fact that there is no "industry standard." How very odd.

Yet at the same time, we have oodles of TVs that claim 720p and 1080i that cannot fully resolve the images. Heck, many CRT HDTVs claim 720p and none even attempt to resolve 720p. Judging by the rest of the HD "standards", all that's really necessary for a manufacturer to make a claim is the ability to accept the input and then scale it to something else. Additionally, it's possible to claim a display resolution even in the panel cannot accept it as an input, if that is indeed its actual resolution.

 

[Woofmeister]

What do you bet that the Xbox 1080p fix for won't be out before Microsoft's high definition movie download service for the Xbox rolls out on November 22?

Hold the phone! Now I see a real problem. the Xbox 360 Limited Warranty is only for 90 days. That warranty applies to all

Xbox-compatible hardware manufactured by or for Microsoft, whether included with the Xbox Video Game System or purchased separately.

Presumably, that includes Xbox 360? VGA HD AV Cable you all purchased to get the 1080p signal from the Xbox to your Sony/Samsung/Acer, etc. 1080p LCD. Now, if it turns out that Microsoft can't get the Xbox 1080p signal to work on your particular LCD and its more than 90 days after your purchase of the HD AV Cable, you won't even be able to get your money back under Microsoft's incredibly stingy warranty.

Anyone here trust Microsoft to still refund your money after 90 days if it turns out they can't get the cable to work for you?

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Sorry, but I can't resist. Another manufacturer somehow comes to the strange conclusion that a panel designated 1080p [b despite the fact that there is no "industry standard." How very odd.

"Strange Conclusion", "How very Odd"?.

I see marketing terms like "Full HD" to diferentiate these newer "1080p" sets, from previous "1080p"sets. You continue to use manufacturers marketing to "prove" "your" point. You provided "must", yet I see no mention of "must" anything, only claimed capabilities, and somewhat vague at that.

Show me an FCC rule and you'll have a legit point (you know, the governing body that reglates broadcasters and equipment manufactures) Otherwise, it appears you are proving my ascertation that the manufacturers themselves are defining a marketing term "1080p" and embellishing it with more marketing terms "Full HD", and it appears to be a moving target at that.

There is nothing I've seen, or you've shown that says Toshiba for instance cannot simply market a particular 1080p TV because it can accept a 1080p signal and display it on screen, nor prevents Philips from marketing a particular 1080p TV because it can display 1080p resolution but cannot accept a 1080p signal.

Seriously, if you wish to continue this off-topic debate, start a new thread.