@magzine said:

@liquidprince:

why do you keep repeating yourself?

It is true that an image rendered at 1080p will be of better quality than an image rendered at 480p and then upscaled 1080p.

The resulting products both fit within the HD specs.

HD says nothing about the quality of the image, just the size.

And here's why it doesn't.

Here is a 480p image:

Here is a 720p image. It is the 480p image "scaled up" to an HD resolution. Notice no loss in fidelity.

I just.. I don't understand what you're not understanding. An upscaled image is not the same as a native HD image. An upscaled image, just because it fits the dimensions of an HD image, does not make it HD. It makes it a scaled image. Or, like I said in the very first post, a "SUB HD" image. For something to be true HD, it needs to be rendered in a HD resolution. I honestly cannot make it anymore clearer then that. Here's an article that explains scaling and what it does... maybe it'll help... HD has to do with what the image is rendered at, not the size. That's why the differentiation between scaling and native HD even exists.

EDIT: Also to address your new images, there is no loss in fidelity because you're looking at a damned black image. Try looking at an image that has fine detail.

@bourbon_warrior: *Waves hand* Off screen play is a gamechanger for adults in a single telly household. Similarly if the PS4/Vita remote play works as well.

Actually, this is entirely incorrect, and is the source of our misunderstanding. Look through the HD spec. HD says nothing about detail or image quality, just about image size.

Finally, the technique used for upscaling is a bit more complicated than 'just stretching'. Upscaling will produce jaggies, but that can be resolved with anti-aliasing.

The image didn't add any detail, but there is more to see and it's spread out over a larger area. It's not necessary a better picture, but for viewing purposes, the larger (HD) image is vastly significant over the small (SD) image.

@magzine: You're wrong in every possible way. It is not a "subjective" matter at all. A native Full HD image will be 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels of visual data. A SD image will be 720 x 480 = 345,600 pixels of visual data. Upscaling takes that 345,600 pixels and stretches it out on a per pixel basis to match your native screen resolution of 1920x1080. Then it applies post processing effects of anti-aliasing and other filters to eliminate macroblocking and other artifacts. The difference is that your upscaled image still only has 345,600 pixels worth of information to convey, where as a native 1920x1080 image has 2,073,600 pixels worth of data to display.

LMAO you are so on crack! Yea, your arguments make little sense as you seem to completely miss the point of the issue on "HD" The issue is the quality of the textures, number or polygons for life like objects, not that it has the required 1280x720 pixils. Nice black box lol...WTF?!

@magzine said:

@liquidprince:

why do you keep repeating yourself?

It is true that an image rendered at 1080p will be of better quality than an image rendered at 480p and then upscaled 1080p.

The resulting products both fit within the HD specs.

HD says nothing about the quality of the image, just the size.

And here's why it doesn't.

Here is a 480p image:

Here is a 720p image. It is the 480p image "scaled up" to an HD resolution. Notice no loss in fidelity.

Actually, the 1080p upscaled image has the full 2m pixels worth of data, it's just data that did not exist in the original image, and is not necessarily accurate to the original source. Or maybe it is. You can scale black just fine, as I showed. There is not anymore detail in the image, but there is physically a large image and more data being pushed by the upscaled version vs the original version.

The HD standard talks about an output size, and says nothing about what is contained inside of the image, where the image is sourced from, what methods were used to obtain said image, how the image data exists in a file or anything else. And, in the sense of the HD specification, the PS3 and 360 typically output HD video.

I'm using what is defined as the High Definition standard, I don't know what you're using. I'm not arguing to change your opinion on what you think HD is, I just want to dispel people from taking your idea of what constitutes HD, and confusing it for the HD standard. And I believe I have achieved that. I see what you're saying, and I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that a natively rendered 1080p =/= an upscaled 480p image, but a signal that contains a 720p signal or higher is defined as High Definition, regardless of what it contains or where it came from.

#endof

e: your image scaling technique is wrong. images are deinterlaced, then interpolated.

e2: clarification

@john1912: stop abusing "HD". HD doesn't talk about any of the things you mentioned. HD mentions the output size of the image and nothing more. My blackbox image illustrates the absurdity of this weird HD definition you guys have.

@liquidprince said:

@magzine said:

@liquidprince said:

@magzine: You're wrong in every possible way. It is not a "subjective" matter at all. A native Full HD image will be 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels of visual data. A SD image will be 720 x 480 = 345,600 pixels of visual data. Upscaling takes that 345,600 pixels and stretches it out on a per pixel basis to match your native screen resolution of 1920x1080. Then it applies post processing effects of anti-aliasing and other filters to eliminate macroblocking and other artifacts. The difference is that your upscaled image still only has 345,600 pixels worth of information to convey, where as a native 1920x1080 image has 2,073,600 pixels worth of data to display.

Actually, the 1080p upscaled image has the full 2m pixels worth of data, it's just data that did not exist in the original image, and is not necessarily accurate to the original source. Or maybe it is. You can scale black just fine, as I showed. There is not anymore detail in the image, but there is physically a large image and more data being pushed by the upscaled version vs the original version.

The HD standard talks about an output size, and says nothing about what is contained inside of the image, where the image is sourced from, what methods were used to obtain said image, how the image data exists in a file or anything else. And, in the sense of the HD specification, the PS3 and 360 typically output HD video.

I'm using what is defined as the High Definition standard, I don't know what you're using. I'm not arguing to change your opinion on what you think HD is, I just want to dispel people from taking your idea of what constitutes HD, and confusing it for the HD standard. And I believe I have achieved that. I see what you're saying, and I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that a natively rendered 1080p =/= an upscaled 480p image, but a signal that contains a 720p signal or higher is defined as High Definition, regardless of what it contains or where it came from.

#endof

couldn't have put it better myself lol

Hey look you can bury your head in the sand and stick with what HD means for a still photo, or out put in pixels, but that's one small part of HD in gaming terms. You can record the worst 8 bit sound in the world into the highest format and its still the worst 8 bit sound in the world because the source material sucks. HD in gaming is about quality of the source material, not that the image can be up scaled. Your insanely focused on what HD means in output, which is the smallest portion of of what HD has become to mean in gaming. Stop being so literal. Thats why no one had a clue as to what you were talking about.

@liquidprince: Good to see you are still with us.

"Next-Gen" is a stupid and overused term that just needs to go away.

That said, the Wii U does basically one thing new and everything else either the same or worse than the other current consoles so I wouldn't really count it as anything but the next Nintendo console.

@john1912: So was the PS2 HD in 1999? Was the PS3 HD in 2005? Will the PS4 still be HD in 2020? Will the PS5 be HD in 2035? I can answer those definitively. No, Yes, Yes, Yes. Think back to 1999 when the PS2 was first announced and they were showing off it's great graphics. Stunned. Amazed. Lots of people said that they thought graphics weren't going to get any better.

Also, your example is not a good example. Because a company can make a shitty, awful looking game (or take indie game devs with 8-bit graphics, for example) and still have it be rendered natively in 1080p. What if it looks almost (but not quite) the same as the 480p version? Is it still high definition?

It's fine that you're trying to evaluate something based on the quality of its output, I just think that there is likely a better way to do it, besides muddling an already existing term.

Let's call a duck a duck, ok?

I consider the WiiU current gen in all honesty.

Do I consider it next gen?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha... I'm sorry I didn't mean to laugh. No I don't consider it next gen at all.

@bourbon_warrior: I have.

@magzine: Stop with your ridiculous and false line of reasoning. I'm going to explain this one final time and if you still don't understand, I'm giving up.

This image is a scaled 240P image up until 1080P. Technically if you count the pixels then yes, there is two million pixels in that image because it was scaled. But the source image only had 320x240=76,800 pixels worth of image data. Just because you scale this image up until 1080P, it doesn't mean that it is actually a native 1080P image. It is a stretched image scaled to fit within the dimensions of the 1080P resolution. A native/real HD image would originate with 2,073,600 pixels of image data. Thus it is in no way an HD image.

@liquidprince: You do not understand the high definition specification. I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself, because I've repeatedly told you over and over again that I understand exactly what you're saying.

The picture you posted is shit, but what you posted still fits inside of the HD specification. If you can follow up your explanation with some concrete material why the 1080p image you posted is not HD, then I could read that, but I'm not arguing about what you think is HD. For my version, see the wiki page for High Definition.

I think what you meant to say in the first place is "native HD rendering," rather than just "HD" (though I noticed in your last post you explicitly stated "native HD," which is a bit less ambiguous). :)

I guess this means you give up.

I don't really know if you're trolling... HD requires the source to have 2 million plus pixels of image data to be considered 1080P HD. The image I posted does not fall under HD specification because it is 76,800 pixels worth of data stretched out into the 1080P dimensions. Hence the reason the term scaling and upscaled exist. It's like if I had a 5.1 surround sound system and I played a song that is only MONO. Just because all 5 speakers are producing the mono track doesn't make the track surround sound.

It's Nintendos next home console. Whether you like it or not, it's a next generation console

@liquidprince: source me.

Is it new? Yes. Does it have better specs than Nintendo's previous console? Yes. Does it replace Nintendo's previous console? Yes. Was it released around the same time its direct competitors were released? Yes.

As consoles go, it looks pretty "next gen-y" to me. Whoever claims it's not based on quality of the games or specs... PC says "hi".

Yes. It's the next generation in the line of Nintendo console products.

If you have time to argue on a subject you know nothing about evidently, then you have time to actually go and do some research on your own. I'm honestly tired of explaining something so simple so many times with so many examples and having you still respond like a rock.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to support your unfounded argument. Shit, most of the time I don't bother pulling sources for my own arguments because I don't need to prove myself to some random person on the internet.

And you're right, I know absolutely nothing about technology or video games. I'm busted :( It was a good run, team. (I'm not sure on what basis you think that your opinion is actually right, other than the fact that you believe it and refuse to even evaluate a different perspective or admit that you used improper terminology. stop being stubborn. it's unbecoming of a senior member.)

On that note, I'm *actually* done in this thread. There is nothing more to be said, so if you want to go ahead and call me dense or whatever other ad hominem attack suits you, go ahead, but I'm done. There is no sense is going in circles. I've admitted several times I see your point of view, and tried to help you to reach the correct conclusion, but you ignore it and say the same thing you said in your first response. Nothing left here to do.

Also, you should forward your incredible discovery of how to transmit a full hd signal using only the bandwidth of a 240p image. Again, I get the argument you are trying to make (that the full image is not adding any extra definition) - but it's wrong. The upscaler interpolated a larger image, creating new data. While the resulting image doesn't add any extra detail, it makes the small, imperceptible details larger, and visible to the naked eye, allowing for a higher apparent definition, because of a larger image occupying more space. Like using a magnifying glass.

Cheers.

You CANNOT create new data from thin air if it didn't exist in the source. When you upscale your are either stretching an image, or replicating pixels. When you capture in native HD you are capturing 2 million plus pixels worth of actual detail, which can make fine details visible. If those fine details don't exist in the source material, you can upscale all you want, but that will not give you an HD image. As for why I refuse to evaluate a different perspective, it's because your perspective is wrong. If you had some sort of valuable insight, I would consider it, but you are the one being stubborn, and you are flat out incorrect.

With regards to your final paragraph, you are damning yourself by basically admitting you're wrong. Making things larger does not equate to having a higher apparent definition. All it means is that the low definition source has been stretched to fill a larger area, thus getting rid of the black bars that would surround the image otherwise. Using a magnifying glass doesn't add details to what your looking at, but just makes it bigger. Honestly the surround sound analogy is the best way I can put it.

I apologize if I seemed frustrated and lashed out, but you are wrong. Either take this as a moment to learn something new, or choose to ignore me completely. Makes no difference to me.

: Not worth it. Hes behind the wall of his own logic.

It's not next generation because it's hardware mirrors that of the generation that is now coming to a close. Maybe it's a Next-Gen Nintendo platform because it's certainly more powerful, if not equally more buggy, than the Wii. As far as the broad spectrum is applied to all consoles on the market, when the PS4 and new Xbox are released the Wii U hardware and basic output performance won't be able to match the technical prowess of the newer consoles effectively eliminating it from the "next gen" bracket so to speak.

Time? Yes.

Technology? No.