Lag is the same thing. The 768 resolution is simply a computer resolution. Unless accompanies by a small black border, 720p (1280x720) will not be as sharp as it normally is when displayed at 1366x768.

You won' t notice much if any lag when playing normal DC and Xbox games on an LCD HDTV when hooked up via simple s-video because the games are mostly 3D polygonal games. Those games aren' t super precise like Mega Man 2 is. Mega Man 2 jumps immediately when you pres the button. 3D games have to go through their animation cycles first. Plus 3D games tend to be slower and less action paced than games of yore... they don' t require the same kind of arcade skill, period.

We played Sonic 3 with my DC and there was no lag. Perhaps its because the equipment is just better.

btw you should look into getting the VGA adapter for xbox 360 so you can set the resolution to 1366x768. It looks a lot better than just using the component and having the TV scale it.

I don' t think you' d notice too much lag on a game like Sonic unless it was really severe. But yes, depending on the brand the lag will be different. But with LCD it will always be there if you are not feeding it its native resolution, period. Though it may be inperceivable to you. If you don' t feel it, don' t worry about it.

btw you should look into getting the VGA adapter for xbox 360 so you can set the resolution to 1366x768. It looks a lot better than just using the component and having the TV scale it.

I DID have mine set to 1280 x 1024, but i' ve changed to to 1360×768 now (or possibly 1024 x 768) and it looks sooooo much sharper.

That seems to mean that i was right about the machine scaling from 1280 x 1024 to something else. What though?

If you just use composit cables you only run 1280*720?

The VGA AV adapter supports 640×480, 848×480, 1024×768, 1280×720, 1280×768, 1280×1024, and 1360×768, but the component cables support up to 1920 x 1080 (1080i).

On another note the machine also acts as a progressive scan, 480p DVD player when displayed on an HDTV using either component and VGA cables.

Vx Chemical, composite cables can only do 480i.

The thing comes with component cables so my guess is he means those.

1080i is inferior to 720p. Since it is interlaced it actually displays way less pixels per second than 720p does. It would be the same pixels per second as 540p would be. 720p looks a lot smoother, and less flickery if you are using a CRT. It still looks really nice though.

" 1080i is inferior to 720p. Since it is interlaced it actually displays way less pixels per second than 720p does. It would be the same pixels per second as 540p would be. 720p looks a lot smoother, and less flickery if you are using a CRT. It still looks really nice though."

Actually no one can seem to agree on this. Some will argue to death that 1080i is better but just as many will say the opposite. One thing is for sure they both blow 480i out of the water. Remember that interlaced becomes less of a hinderance when you add more lines to the television. However with gaming I happen to agree with you.

Also incase some of you don' t know the difference with interlaced and progressive... some people including some writers for PC Gamer seem to think it has to do with FPS, it does not. Interlaced which is still used for television, displays only every odd or even horizontal line (alternating with each frame), the frame that it does not render is mearly displaying what was on the previous frame. Progressive is having the entire screen rendered every frame instead of only half of it. Computer moniters have always done progressive to my knowledge, infact the whole progressive and interlaced buisness only conserns televisions.






" I DID have mine set to 1280 x 1024, but i' ve changed to to 1360×768 now (or possibly 1024 x 768) and it looks sooooo much sharper."

That' s because 1280x1024 is a 4:3 resolution not 16:9, MS through it in there incase you want to use your computer moniter with a VGA cable. So you were seeing a squarish image being stretched.

1080i is inferior to 720p. Since it is interlaced it actually displays way less pixels per second than 720p does.

Incorrect. 1080i = 1920x540x60 (when running at 60 frames per second) = 62,208,000 pixels per second. 720p = 1280x720x60 = 55,296,000 pixels per second. That' s almost 7 million more pixels per second provided by 1080i. The " 720p is smoother" argument is usually supported by those who own TVs that cannot display resolutions above 720p. 720p does have the advantage of being progressive, but tons of people can' t even tell the difference between 480i and 480p. One thing is for sure is that 1080i has much more horizontal resolution, interlaced or not. 1080i is slightly flickery, but the lines are so thin that it can be tough to notice, and only CRTs interlace. Other display formats are incapable of interlacing due to how slow they are.

It should also be noted that both 720p and 1080i can run at multiple frame rates. Either 60fps, 30 (or 29.97) or 24fps. When running at 30 or 24, 1080i clearly wins as the interlacing becomes irrelevant since the whole 1920x1080 is used for a single frame. 1080p would look just as good, but without the flicker. Can' t wait for real 1080p TVs which accept a 1080p source. Also can' t wait for devices that actually generate a true 1080p signal (PS3 games so far are 720p).

PS - I don' t think ANY CRTs display 720p as true 720p.

That' s because 1280x1024 is a 4:3 resolution not 16:9, MS through it in there incase you want to use your computer moniter with a VGA cable. So you were seeing a squarish image being stretched.

Ok, so when i selected 1280 x 1024, what did the machine scale it to?

My monitor has an aspect ratio of 5:4 (as most 18+" CRT' s do) and 1360 x 768 looks better than any of the other settings AND the picture doen' t need manually re-sizing anymore, it displays widescreen formatted games in widescreen and without the small black borders (the only borders are the ones from the widescreen picture).

lets just get the hdtv that Joe has/is getting.

His knowledge on the subject is a tad un-godly.

UN-godly?

Meaning above God. :)

I have the Sony KV-34XBR960. Not sure if they are still on the market.

but to get the true hd experiance dont you need like a 60 inch set for 1080p and onwards?? thats only 30!

But nevermind me, if i want something, i' d probably steal it.

Sorry but Joe is wrong. Since 1080i is interlaced it only displays half the pixels every frame. Which is way less than 720p.

ORIGINAL: locopuyo

Sorry but Joe is wrong. Since 1080i is interlaced it only displays half the pixels every frame. Which is way less than 720p.

That' s how i understood it.

I' m confused now though and i still want to know was resolution my 360 was scaling my image to when i selected 1280 x 1024. The games don' t even support that resolution so it must have been scaled. Surely?

Ok, so when i selected 1280 x 1024, what did the machine scale it to?

My monitor has an aspect ratio of 5:4 (as most 18+" CRT' s do) and 1360 x 768 looks better than any of the other settings AND the picture doen' t need manually re-sizing anymore, it displays widescreen formatted games in widescreen and without the small black borders (the only borders are the ones from the widescreen picture).


I didn' t realize some computer monitors were 5:4, it thought the non wide screen ones were all 4:3. I guess you' re shit out of luck because the 360 doesn' t scale well at 5:4. I' m sure it doesn' t look too bad though, better then using a SD television.



1080i=1920x1080/2= 1 036 800
720p=1280x720=921 600

Locopuyo if you were any good at math (and perhaps reading comprehension), you' d see that I multiplied 1920x540 (which equals 1,036,800 pixels 60 times a second), not 1920x1080. It is always 1920 pixels across, interlaced or not. 720p = 1280x720 (which equals 921,600 pixels 60 times a second). Only someone who has less than a second grade education in math can' t see that. Am I the only one on this board older than 7? Seriously.

Prove me wrong. You can' t. But I' ve just proved you wrong TWICE.

EDIT: I see Gamejunkie did the math correctly.