Gotcha. I've seen the difference between upconverted DVD and 720 and I think it's pretty big.

What I have yet to really see is a 1080 signal compared side by side with a 720 signal with the same content running at the same time. Any time you see 1080 at Best Buy or Circuit City, it's always set aside on a bluray player that's playing it's own movie that's different from all the other TVs.

It depends on the size of the TV and the viewing distance. You won't notice a difference between smaller TV's, but you "could" see a difference on the larger TV's, 50" and up. I say "could" because most people like me probably still wouldn't be able to. It's like you have to have an eye out for it like musicians have for music. They hear crap that the average listener doesn't hear.

That's funny you should mention that. When I first got my tv earlier this year, I remember thinking why the heck isn't my set as clear as it was in the store??? Later on I figured it out... use an HDMI cable. It'll make all the difference in the world. At least mine did!

I can clearly see the difference between ESPNHD (720p signal) and DiscoveryHD (1080i signal). The 720p edges are not quite as crisp.

You may need to adjust your TV settings for 720P or to auto-adjust according to the signal. If it's set for 1080i (or p), 720P might not look as good as it's supposed to. Otherwise, 720P is better than 1080i so it should actually look better, especially for sports.

FYI, Office Depot has the Xbox 360 Premium with HDMI for $300 after $50mir

That sounds like a really good deal!

No, it's not. It scan refreshes faster, but the lines are not as crisp. I'd rather have crisper lines than fast refreshes, unless I'm watching an auto race.

Here you go:

http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1544/The-Facts-and-Fiction-of-1080p/p2/

For sports, 720p is better than 1080i which may be the reason you're seeing a difference between ESPN and Discovery as 1080i is probably excellent for scenary.

Thank you. You just posted an article that shows exactly what I already said...

From your article:

Here's the kicker... They just proved in their math that the 1080i shows more pixels per second, right after they qualify that it's the pixels per second that give better quality...

Granted it's only a "few" more, but it's still more.

Not to mention, they never said anything in that article about what the human eye can actually see. Please do a google search on that, and you'll find that there isn't a consensus as to how many "frames per second" the human eye can actually see.

The reality of it is, an interlaced 1080 picture will be clearer than a progressive 720 picture, because 1)the refresh rate of the interlaced is still faster than what the human eye can perceive, and 2)there are more pixels defining the same image, aka, crisper images.

The reason ESPN and ABC look so much worse is, there's just not as much information being displayed at any given time as it would have been if it were a 1080 picture. You can't make up for this missing information; refreshing the screen twice as fast isn't gonna' magically create better sharpness of the features. The only reason you can get away with using 720p for sports is, the edge sharpness is never there to begin with, because the camera and the focus of the action is constantly moving. So it's not clear that it isn't as sharp as the 1080 signal.

It's not that 720p is "better" for watching sports. It's "better" for the studio, 'cause ESPN can get away with the lower quality signal, lower quality cameras, and less bandwidth to deliver the signal, when the images are moving so quickly. However, when you watch Sportscenter, it looks like crap verses watching a football game. As soon as the background and things aren't moving, you finally realize you aren't seeing a sharp image anymore.

porsche996, I think we can debate the whole 720p vs. 1080i as much as we've debated the 360 vs. PS3 which has obviously gotten us no where. All I was saying is to check your TV and try putting it 720P mode for ESPN to see if that fixes the problem and makes it better since it's apparently being broadcasted in native 720P. It's worth a shot if you haven't already tried that.

Yup, it is a great deal. I previously stated that it wasn't the premium because it doesn't come with the DVD remote. I was wrong. I think I got a limited edition since mine had a remote, but none of the premium's or elite's comes with the remote after looking at the specs. I think I'm going to sell mine and keep the remote and upgrade to the HDMI and another 2 years worth of warranty.

Yep. We can debate it all day. No, I won't be touching the settings on my TV, though; it's already set to autoswitch. Not much more I can do.

I'll tell you, though. Watch a hockey game on ESPNHD (720p), then watch one on HDNet (1080i), and I promise you, you'll never sing the praises of 720p being "better" than 1080i for sports... Sure, the 720p looks a helluva' lot better than SD TV (as it should). And as long as you watch the 720p first, then the 1080i second, you don't notice a huge difference, if at all. But if you watch the 1080i first, then drop down to the 720p, you will be sadly dissappointed with the 720p picture quality.

Now, maybe it's the cable company compressing the signals differently, or the cable company's box interpreting & sending out the signals differently; I don't know. All I know is, it's hooked up to my TV through HDMI, the TV is "auto-switching", and ESPNHD looks like absolute crap compared to any channel that broadcasts in 1080i. And that goes for ABC as well; primetime on ABC looks significantly worse than primetime on CBS, Fox, and NBC, as Disney only broadcasts in the 720p setting, and the other networks use 1080i.

(And FYI: television and movie film are STILL shot in only 24 fps, so it really doesn't matter if the screen is being refreshed 60 times per second (progressive), or 30 times per second (interlaced), as BOTH are faster refresh rates than the source was captured in...)

:p

You know, I probably would have bought a 360 if it had a hd-dvd as original equipment. I know they were trying to rush things to get a jump on the competition but things would have been much different for me if they had waited a bit. Just think where HD-DVD would be now if they had waited. Instead of BR kicking butt and taking names, HD-DVD would be in the drivers seat. Just short sighted thinking IMO and so I feel they made the rest of the system like that. Poorly designed and rushed to market before it should have been. Maybe I'll pick one up later after the Xbots beta test it for me. They might work out the kinks by next Christmas.

Don't worry, xbox will have a new console sometime in 2009

Yeah. But that's only to replace the burned out Xbox360s... It's Microsoft's way of making sure you "upgrade" every so often. Just make sure the box is unreliable as hell, and people will HAVE to "upgrade" whether they want to or not.

Have you seen the latest sales trends? I'll admit a lot was tied to the Halo 3 launch, but M$ outsold Wii for the first time ever and Sony is a way distant 3rd place. M$ is posting profits for the fist time in their games division history while Sony is posting record losses in their games division. If Sony continues on their current sales trend, they might sell a couple dozen PS4s. Right now it seems all the PS3 is good for is folding@home.

Porche996, All you have posted is Sony fanboi shit in this thread. I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft, but there is nothing the PS3 offers me that I can't get for my Xbox 360. I came from PC gaming and realy like the Xbox 360 warts and all. The PS3 hasn't had the content (which matters more than anything) to lure me away from the Xbox.

More altruistic uses of the PS3...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7074547.stm

Sony wanted an altruistic program to try to demonstrate the computing power of their cell technology and they chose folding@home. Not a cool game or anything but I'm more than happy to help out when I'm not playing a game or watching a movie. I've been folding since June/July and nothing adverse to report at this time.

The article explains the distributive computing network and what folding@home does better than I could.

The PS3 is 1 million units behind (30%)where the 360 was at the same time last year in US sales. They've only sold 2.2 million consoles, Meanwhile Nintendo has sold 5.7 million, and the 360 has added nearly 5 million consoles in that the past year. ( US only numbers ).

The only way that the PS3 numbers can compare is if you include Japan, where they are still being crushed by Nintendo.

Unless the PS3 has a huge holiday surge the console is done in the US, It just won't be able to overtake the 360. I don't expect that to happen even with the price drops. I'd expect both the Wii and 360 to double up the PS3 numbers this season in the US. If Sony wants to become competitive in the US market they must outsell the 360 2 to 1 this holiday season, which I simply don't see happening.

The PS3 came in at too high of a price point, too late, and there have been no compelling exclusive titles for it in the US.

HD-DVD has hit the sub $100 player market as of today, and now Blu-ray is going to have to follow suit if they want to win that war. If sony wants to try to continue to sell Blu-Ray at a higher price because it's supposedly a superior product they'll lose there as well. The fact that you can get a dedicated player for under $100 seriously undermines any idea that the PS3 is an extreme value for it's Blu-ray capability.

If you want to argue that the PS3 is doing just fine by looking at world-wide numbers you're ignoring that the largest segment of the market is the US, and that's what drives the games most of us are buying and playing. Wii has done a great job on all fronts, and the 360 has done a great job in the US. The PS3 hasn't excelled in any market yet.

The 360 is more of a stop gap console. It will probably be replaced by 09-10. The PS3 is a "ten year" console. So when the 360 falls by the wayside and MS stops making games and supporting the 360 the PS3 will be on the ground running. I'm not so worried about the PS3 being first this Christmas season. It's next year I worry about. If they do poorly even though plenty of games will be on the shelves, that is when I would be concerned.

Nintendo is the kiddie pool of the gaming world and has been for a long time. They are selling lots of consoles but few games from what I hear. Games drive the industry. You give away razors to sell blades or so the saying goes.

M$ has had a good strategy so far. Draw first blood and hope too many consoles don't fail. They saw the preview of the PS3 and shit themselves. They knew they had to be first or be out of it again in this round. Lots of shortcuts were taken in the 360 which is the main issue I have with it. The 30% failure rate would attest to that. I'll wait for the next gen M$ to consider buying it. Hopefully that console will live up to being new generation rather than the Xbox 1.5 they came up with this time.

So the PS3 will still be going strong in 2015 and not replaced until 2017?

Ummm... I'll believe that when I see it.

They'll probably transition like they did with the PS, PS2 and now the PS3 near the last couple years of it's life cycle. Use the old console to help fund the new consoles growing pains. Just guessing here but that is what they did with the other transitions.

Some interesting facts:
PS1, released Dec 94, 102 million sold
PS2, March 00, 120 million sold
PS3, Nov 06, 5.5 Million sold

XBox, Nov 01, 24 million sold
xbox 360, Nov 05, 13 million sold

If the trend continues,
Next xbox due somewhere in 2009 (2 years or less from NOW)
Next PS due somewhere in 2012 (5 years+)

I think you'll see that won't be the case. Business 101. They are and always will be released close to each other. No way MS releases the next xbox without the PS4 right behind it (or vice versa), unless Sony has waived the white flag. Otherwise, one of them will have total control of the market. MS got late in the game with the Xbox. It was a good business decision to release the 360 before the PS3 and taking over the market. I expect release dates will return to normal now.

The next Xbox has been in preliminary development for over a year now.

Linky

I'm sure preliminary devo for the PS4 has started as well.

Linky