Why must we worry about 1:1 pixel mapping??!!!

E

Eastcoasthandle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
1,041
This is a pretty large community, why can't we just come together as one and request that our xbox 360, PS3 and Wii update the firmware to support 1200i/1200p? You know, it makes no sense to jump through these many hoops when a firmware update from your favorite console would fix this problem.

Side note:
Unless you work as an engineer for either of these consoles I don't want to hear about "it's not possible". Xbox360 added a firmware update to include 1080p (regardless of the reason) therefore this too can be possible. Even if they have to do a generic 1920x1200 rsolution (for example).
 
because games are designed for this ratio 16:9, i guess 16:10 would need the games to be designed differently...
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
This is a pretty large community, why can't we just come together as one and request that our xbox 360, PS3 and Wii update the firmware to support 1200i/1200p? You know, it makes no sense to jump through these many hoops when a firmware update from your favorite console would fix this problem.

Side note:
Unless you work as an engineer for either of these consoles I don't want to hear about "it's not possible". Xbox360 added a firmware update to include 1080p (regardless of the reason) therefore this too can be possible. Even if they have to do a generic 1920x1200 rsolution (for example).
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by a "generic" 1920 by 1200 resolution -- "generic" as opposed to what? :confused:

I agree that it would be nice for the consoles to support those of us who use 16:10 monitors as our primary display -- but, even if they did, I don't think that changes the fact that there's absolutely no excuse for a 16:10 LCD monitor that advertises that it supports 1080p to have aspect ratio controls that don't work properly. 1080i/p and 720p are industry standard HD resolutions. If a gaming console, cable box, HD-DVD player, or other device outputs correctly at this resolution, then it's done its job as far as I'm concerned. Why should every HD device in existence have to update its firmware just because companies like Dell and BenQ don't properly test the functionality of their aspect ratio controls before releasing their monitors?

If a console decides to support 1920 by 1200, that's great, but IMO they should do it because there's a useful reason for doing so, e.g. if its games or interface supports the extra vertical resolution. But regardless of whether the consoles support 16:10 resolutions, the makers of PC monitors need to get their acts together -- 16:9 resolutions aren't going anywhere, and I think it's pretty ridiculous that there are so few models that are capable of doing something as trivial as avoiding distortion in the geometry of the input. So while it would be nice if consoles supported 16:10, IMO this isn't a real solution to the problem.
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Side note:
Unless you work as an engineer for either of these consoles I don't want to hear about "it's not possible". Xbox360 added a firmware update to include 1080p (regardless of the reason) therefore this too can be possible. Even if they have to do a generic 1920x1200 rsolution (for example).
Click to expand...

You don't have to be engineer to figure this out; not all consoles are as powerful as XBox360/PS3 hence they can't display 1200P.
 
bootstrap said:
Not sure what you mean by a "generic" 1920 by 1200 resolution -- "generic" as opposed to what? :confused:

I agree that it would be nice for the consoles to support those of us who use 16:10 monitors as our primary display -- but, even if they did, I don't think that changes the fact that there's absolutely no excuse for a 16:10 LCD monitor that advertises that it supports 1080p to have aspect ratio controls that don't work properly. 1080i/p and 720p are industry standard HD resolutions. If a gaming console, cable box, HD-DVD player, or other device outputs correctly at this resolution, then it's done its job as far as I'm concerned. Why should every HD device in existence have to update its firmware just because companies like Dell and BenQ don't properly test the functionality of their aspect ratio controls before releasing their monitors?

If a console decides to support 1920 by 1200, that's great, but IMO they should do it because there's a useful reason for doing so, e.g. if its games or interface supports the extra vertical resolution. But regardless of whether the consoles support 16:10 resolutions, the makers of PC monitors need to get their acts together -- 16:9 resolutions aren't going anywhere, and I think it's pretty ridiculous that there are so few models that are capable of doing something as trivial as avoiding distortion in the geometry of the input. So while it would be nice if consoles supported 16:10, IMO this isn't a real solution to the problem.
Click to expand...

I truly understand your point of view and there is validity in what you say. I am not trying to excuse LCD manufactures of faulty workmanship and quality control. My point is to be able to use the enter 24" screen without stretching or compromising IQ. That's the point of why I created this thread. To me it's silly to have a 24" monitor that has to scale down to accommodate dated HD resolutions of 1080i or 1080p in 1:1 pixel mapping. Lets face it, those HD resolutions are dated and more appropriate for larger HDTV, not smaller 20"-30" LCD monitors. So why are we beating up on LCD companies to accommodate dated HD resolution on LCD monitors that was clearly intended for HDTV?

As you already know more and more people are buying these monitors as multi-platforms with console use in mind. And, it's common affair to see these monitors used in places like Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, etc to demo the use of the Wii, X360 and PS3. I mean, if it's a good idea for them to use, it's certainly a good idea for use to use as well. Some gamers are starting to realize that in playing a console on a 40" HDTV is not all that it's cracked up to be and, simply looks better on the smaller LCD monitors. In most cases keeping their larger HDTVs solely for movie watching and other show enjoyments.

Regardless if you agree to why people are using LCDs over the HDTVs it's very clear that many are making the move. This cannot be denied and as such must be properly recognized for what they are, a niche market for any proactive company willing to make it happen. To be honest, this is a very simple issue that only requires the updates to allow a few more resolutions:
1680x1050
1600x1200
1920x1200
These 3 requests are not to much to ask for. I am reading post(s) already where people are asking that these resolutions be supported (xbox360). So lets imbrace this for what it is, a set forward in technology.
 
linux on ps3 and xbox360 should be able to display 1920x1200 through vga and hdmi/dvi with HDCP respectively. Setting a standard HDTV res. 720p or 1080p on consoles games, puts puts a limit the for the game developer to use the availble system resource required for good performance. Serving all manner of resolutions at 1:1 especially for those exceeding 1080p would not be practical.
 
^^I beg to differ:
-they use powerful cpu and gpu so that shouldn't be an issue
-it's time to move forward. 1080i/p is dated and soon we will see 2160
-consoles are no longer confined to larger HDTV as in years past.
 
You make some good points, Eastcoasthandle. I do have to disagree, though, that 1080p is "dated". Yes, it's true that monitors are already starting to push higher resolution, but regardless of how long 1080p has been around there's still an enormous lack of content at this resolution. HDTV still only broadcasts in 1080i or 720p, and despite more widespread adoption of HDTVs, the huge majority of stations out there still broadcast in SD. Blu-ray and HD-DVDs, the first mainstream sources of 1080p content, are still not widely adopted yet and won't be until prices start to approach the same ballpark as current DVD players. So regardless of how quickly monitors start supporting higher resolutions, it's going to be a very long time before the industry adopts a new "higher-definition" standard.

Even aside from the content, 1080p hasn't even been fully adopted in TVs and monitors yet. A huge number of brand new HDTVs are still only displaying content at 720p. In the PC monitor world, there's much more flexibility, but even though 1200p displays have been around for a while now I'd hardly call them common. From most things I've read, the huge majority of gamers are still using resolutions around 1280 by 1024. 20 and 22 inch monitors have only become popular and affordable over the last year or so, and they still don't display at 1080p. 24 inch monitors that support the full HD resolution are finally starting to come down in price, but they still cost on the order of twice as much as a 22 inch display, so it's going to be a while before it's "standard", never mind "dated".

Even if resolutions higher than 1080p were more standard, I think you're overestimating the power of the next-gen consoles. 2160p which you mention below would have about 4 times as many pixels as 1080p -- even the high end GPUs for PCs, which already outclass those in consoles would do pretty poorly at this resolution. So I think you're confusing "bleeding edge" with "standard" -- 1080p, IMO, is certainly not dated, and I think it's debatable as to whether it could even be considered to have widespread adoption yet.

All that said, I am in favor of consoles having as much flexibility as possible -- if they could support 16:10 resolutions, then I'm all in favor of it. I just don't see it as a necessity, and like I said in my original post, I think it would be far easier for PC monitors to correctly function as they advertise rather than every HD device to have to cater to a huge number of nonstandard resolutions. Just my 2 cents.
 
bootstrap,

You make some interesting points and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I guess the best thing to do as this point is wait and see what happens to see who will budge first (console or monitor) in fixing this problem.

Also, I've seen a xbox360 Title (which one really isn't important) on my 42" HDTV at 1080i. I then see it on a 24" WS monitor that doesn't support 1:1 pixel mapping using (aspect ratio I think). This means there are no boarders around the image on the screen. Looking at the game on both HDTV at 16:9 and monitor at 16:10 I cannot see a difference. If there is stretching in the 16:10 I seriously don't see it. So is this really a game breaker that a monitor doesn't support 1:1? For me the answer is no. Reason is that I've seen both and cannot tell the difference. Their is nothing wrong with my eye sight when I say this.

Therefore, to me 1:1 pixel map argument:
-Is flawed because the arguments are not comparing 16:9 vs 16:10
-Actual image does not appear to make a difference when comparing 16:9 on a larger screen vs 16:10 on a smaller screen. Characters and objects are not chubby and short or thin and tall.
-Overall picture quality should remain priority. What good is it to get 1:1 and the picture looks like crap.
-A lot of people requesting 1:1 have never taken the time to compare 16:9 on a 42"+ vs 16:10 on 24" to see what I have seen. A lot of the arguments for 1:1 is basically regurgitated verbage from other posts which has no facts as a bases for such a request.
-To be honest, I see a slight, tad of image stretch using the 42" HDTV at 16:9 then I do with a 24" w/o 1:1 at 16:10. Therefore, I seriously don't understand why people are so upset about this. Just because you change the mode of the monitor from one aspect to another and, the image shifts to compensate doesn't necessarily mean it's stretching. However, an explanation of this should be provided in your owner's manual.
 
Is there any tangible reason why 1:1 is important? Iif you've seen the difference between 42" 16:9 and 24" 16:10 and, still can't see any stretching or errors in a none 1:1 24"?
 
To be quite honest, I used to be worried about 1:1 pixel mapping but after I got my Dell 2007WFP several months ago it has ceased to be an issue. I have truly only used the 1:1 one time and that was when NFS:Carbon was released with no WS support and no workarounds yet. I do not use the 1:1 for Xbox 360...I simply use the highest widescreen res and then let it stretch and it looks great. I could see maybe using the pixel mapping if you have a 24-30" monitor and your videocard can't handle the res...but then that begs the question: why buy an expensive monitor to pair with your old/weak videocard?
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Also, I've seen a xbox360 Title (which one really isn't important) on my 42" HDTV at 1080i. I then see it on a 24" WS monitor that doesn't support 1:1 pixel mapping using (aspect ratio I think). This means there are no boarders around the image on the screen. Looking at the game on both HDTV at 16:9 and monitor at 16:10 I cannot see a difference. If there is stretching in the 16:10 I seriously don't see it. So is this really a game breaker that a monitor doesn't support 1:1? For me the answer is no. Reason is that I've seen both and cannot tell the difference. Their is nothing wrong with my eye sight when I say this.
Click to expand...
Eastcoasthandle,

This is a good point -- user perception and preference adds an entirely new dimension to this problem. If a user enjoys the picture on their monitor without 1:1 pixel mapping, either because they can't tell the difference or because they just don't care, then I completely agree with you -- why should they care about 1:1 mapping? I think something a lot of us forget on these forums is that at the end of the day, everyone's preferences are different and they can't always be quantified. If someone likes something and it makes them happy, then at the end of the day that's really all that matters. If 1:1 mapping doesn't matter to you, then by all means ignore this feature when choosing the best monitor for you, and ignore anyone who calls you stupid and tells you your opinion is wrong.

For my part, I'll try to explain why I consider 1:1 mapping important. First of all, I think it's important to remember that 1:1 mapping affects all resolutions -- we've been mostly talking about 16:9 vs. 16:10, but I think most people would be unhappy with a monitor that stretches 4:3 resolutions horizontally to 16:10. For instance, the previous revisions of the Dell 2407 had problems with 1:1 mapping at a resolution of 1600 by 1200, which was a big problem for gamers who played 4:3 games and whose video card didn't have its own aspect ratio control.

With regards to 16:9 to 16:10, I agree with you that most people would have a hard time telling apart 16:9 on a 42 inch HDTV vs 16:10 on a 24 inch screen; however, I'd suspect that the large difference in size might have something to do with this. My TV tuner card has an option to switch between either 16:9 or 16:10 (by stretching the image vertically). If I toggle between these two, the difference is clearly obvious. Now, whether or not the difference is bothersome is an entirely different matter and really comes down to individual preference. For me, it's the type of thing where if I know that the aspect ratio is not correct, I start actively looking for the stretching, and it distracts me from whatever I'm watching. Maybe it's a bit obsessive, but to me it's no different than someone paying a lot of money for calibration equipment to help them set their monitors to the "correct" colors even if they couldn't tell the difference otherwise. I want to see the game or movie exactly the way it was meant to be seen, and for $600+, IMO, I shouldn't have to "settle" or "get used" something that I know is not correct, especially when it should be so easy for the monitor manufacturer to give me the choice.

Just a couple other points:
-Overall picture quality should remain priority. What good is it to get 1:1 and the picture looks like crap.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but one thing to consider is that any stretching of an image degrades picture quality because interpolation is taking place. There's no longer a 1 to 1 mapping between pixels in the image and pixels on the screen, so the monitor has to do its best job of interpolating 1080 pixels to 1200, and anytime this is done the picture will always be slightly less sharp. So from that point of view, 1:1 mapping is important for image quality.

-To be honest, I see a slight, tad of image stretch using the 42" HDTV at 16:9 then I do with a 24" w/o 1:1 at 16:10. Therefore, I seriously don't understand why people are so upset about this. Just because you change the mode of the monitor from one aspect to another and, the image shifts to compensate doesn't necessarily mean it's stretching. However, an explanation of this should be provided in your owner's manual.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean here -- can you clarify what you mean by "shifting"? When displaying a 16:9 image on a 16:10 monitor, the picture is either stretched (fills the screen) or not (leaving black bars) -- I'm not sure where the shifting comes in.
 
Once again good points bootstrap.
What I meant was going from an image that was centered around 4 black bars to filling the entire screen.

joemama
You understand what I am saying, good point.
 
Askanison said:
Setting a standard HDTV res. 720p or 1080p on consoles games, puts puts a limit the for the game developer to use the availble system resource required for good performance. Serving all manner of resolutions at 1:1 especially for those exceeding 1080p would not be practical.
Click to expand...

This man has it right. Also, the XBox 360, PS3 and certainly the Wii, are not as powerful as the OP believes them to be. Running Oblivion higher than 1080p would not be practical, as it would have major framerate issues (if it doesn't already at 1080p). We have gaming PC's that are much more powerful than these consoles, and trying to play games at 1920x1200 and above is often not practical, only the top GPU's can handle it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top