PS3 or New X-box 360?

[Cable]

Is there not a 'fix' for this via live update ? Thought I read somewhere that there was ?

 

As far as I was aware you need a HDMI cable connection for 1080p which the 360 doesn't have. The 360 elite is apparently coming out with HDMI

[Snooze]

As far as I was aware you need a HDMI cable connection for 1080p which the 360 doesn't have. The 360 elite is apparently coming out with HDMI

 

Yeah - MS always claimed the 360 did 1080p, which was by-and-large true. The problem is that there was no way of getting a 1080p signal OUT of the box!

[Snooze]

Sorry I still disagree. I have 1080p bravia and if I played a standard DVD in a standard DVD player it will not upscale itself to a 1080 level and I doudbt it would even do 720p. If I use the upscaling DVD player the TV automatically switches it's resolution to 1080p. What you are saying is that things like SKY HD TV are not relevant as a new TVs will 'upscale' a standard SKY transmission up to this level.

 

Well the Bravias display 1920x1080 pixels native, I believe, so something has to be filling in the extra pixels, unless your standard DVD player only displays in one quarter of the screen?!?!

 

When you say the TV "switches to 1080p", this is it informing you of the INPUT resolution, not the output resolution - the output resolution is ALWAYS at the native display resolution (hence the picture fills the screen). And having bought a Bravia, you've already paid a decent chunk of money for a good quality hardware scaler to do this.

 

And an HD source, like Sky HD, is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than an upscaled 480p image, of course. With an HD source, the "extra" pixels are from the original picture, not made up by some algorithm which Sony commissioned, which can (and frequently does! - especially with moving images!) get it wrong.

[Cable]

Well the Bravias display 1920x1080 pixels native, I believe, so something has to be filling in the extra pixels, unless your standard DVD player only displays in one quarter of the screen?!?!

 

When you say the TV "switches to 1080p", this is it informing you of the INPUT resolution, not the output resolution - the output resolution is ALWAYS at the native display resolution (hence the picture fills the screen). And having bought a Bravia, you've already paid a decent chunk of money for a good quality hardware scaler to do this.

 

And an HD source, like Sky HD, is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than an upscaled 480p image, of course. With an HD source, the "extra" pixels are from the original picture, not made up by some algorithm which Sony commissioned, which can (and frequently does! - especially with moving images!) get it wrong.

 

 

So an upscaled input form an upscaling dvd player of 1080p is going to be much much better than anything a TV inbuilt upscaler is going to do?

[Snooze]

So an upscaled input form an upscaling dvd player of 1080p is going to be much much better than anything a TV inbuilt upscaler is going to do?

 

It really depends on the DVD player and the TV. The Bravia has a pretty good upscaler, but it's not going to be as good as something like the Oppo or the Denon players, which are getting good reviews.

 

If you want to go really over-the-top, you could even buy a dedicated Scaler unit and route your Sky, standard DVD player and PS3 ALL through it.

 

The problem with the comparison is that it's quite subjective as companies (obviously) guard their upscaling algorithms closely.

I'm sure the PS3 upscaler isn't completely shoddy (apart from the issue with 720p games, of course!), and with a Bravia too, you've got a good selection of options there - just go with whatever works best for you!

 

As you have a Bravia, I wouldn't rush to replace a 480 DVD player with an upscaling one - might be worth seeing if you can borrow one from your local AV shop to try in your set-up to see if it's worth it for you.....

[Cable]

It really depends on the DVD player and the TV. The Bravia has a pretty good upscaler, but it's not going to be as good as something like the Oppo or the Denon players, which are getting good reviews.

 

If you want to go really over-the-top, you could even buy a dedicated Scaler unit and route your Sky, standard DVD player and PS3 ALL through it.

 

The problem with the comparison is that it's quite subjective as companies (obviously) guard their upscaling algorithms closely.

I'm sure the PS3 upscaler isn't completely shoddy (apart from the issue with 720p games, of course!), and with a Bravia too, you've got a good selection of options there - just go with whatever works best for you!

 

As you have a Bravia, I wouldn't rush to replace a 480 DVD player with an upscaling one - might be worth seeing if you can borrow one from your local AV shop to try in your set-up to see if it's worth it for you.....

 

Honestly, the PS3 upscaler (for DVD's not games) is very good. There isn't much more of a difference than that and Blu ray

[DaveK]

Honestly, the PS3 upscaler (for DVD's not games) is very good. There isn't much more of a difference than that and Blu ray

 

I clearly did something wrong then. There was a big difference between the Blu-Ray disc and a normal DVD when I tried it - and I tried playing the same (non Blu-Ray) disc on my PS3 and on my Sony DVD player and couldn't see any difference at all.

[Snooze]

Honestly, the PS3 upscaler (for DVD's not games) is very good. There isn't much more of a difference than that and Blu ray

 

Cool - at the end of the day, all the jargon, the time spent browsing avforums ( ) and the reviews don't really matter at all. Whatever looks best to you is the best option!

 

Personally, I'm still on the fence about next-gen consoles, and the amount of time I've spent gaming since my boy was born probably means it's not worth me getting one at all (until he's old enough to play with me ). I'd be a bit worried at the future of the Blu-ray format, as the industry seems to be leaning towards the cheaper (but slightly inferior) HD-DVD format. But with the weight of Sony and the PS3 behind it, who knows!

[Daston]

PS3 is cheaper will have better games (as well as 90% of the 360's games) comes with blu ray, wi-fi and controller recharge kit as standard! That would cost you a further £220for the 360.

 

As for online play the PS3 is pretty much the same as xbox live. The whole 360's being able to play with Vista is rubbish, you have to have a gold account to play online with the 360 guys so why would I pay to play online when I can already do it for free? Plus you would get bored of being owned by guys on much faster PC's with keyboard and mice.

[bmx1lew]

xbox 360 = lots of games, cheap, great online, nice graphics, perfect controle pad, basicly out the box your a ready to go hardcore gamer however if you want the added features of hd, wifi you do have to pay extra, however if you dont need them then it works out nice and cheap.

 

ps3 = few games, expensive, not as good as the 360 online, "nice graphics" too me nothing impresive (nor is xbox360) however i feel with the ps3 you should be getting more yet it still has sony signature, weak colours and jaggard lines ( any one who says there not is a lier), controle pad does not have rumble, feels too light, feels like cheap plastic, same old design, with uncomfortable positionings of the anolog sticks.

 

i would personally go for a xbox360 but again i would want a ps3 simply for GT and MGS all in all i think the 360 is the daddy, fair enought it can break down, i believe MS have fixed this issue and also supply a 3year warrenty, people tend to forgot how bad the ps3 was on release, apart from that it looks like a george forman grill!

[Muffleman]

I'd be a bit worried at the future of the Blu-ray format, as the industry seems to be leaning towards the cheaper (but slightly inferior) HD-DVD format.

 

Really ? Blimey, when I looked a few weeks ago it was looking like blu-ray was going to 'win'. Has this changed ? Or is it still too close to call ?

 

Either way it's annoying ! It's like DVD +r or DVD -r all over again

[Cable]

It's alright, i use my PC for gaming as they're much better.

[DaveK]

xbox 360 = lots of games, cheap, great online, nice graphics, perfect controle pad, basicly out the box your a ready to go hardcore gamer however if you want the added features of hd, wifi you do have to pay extra, however if you dont need them then it works out nice and cheap.

 

ps3 = few games, expensive, not as good as the 360 online, "nice graphics" too me nothing impresive (nor is xbox360) however i feel with the ps3 you should be getting more yet it still has sony signature, weak colours and jaggard lines ( any one who says there not is a lier), controle pad does not have rumble, feels too light, feels like cheap plastic, same old design, with uncomfortable positionings of the anolog sticks.

 

i would personally go for a xbox360 but again i would want a ps3 simply for GT and MGS all in all i think the 360 is the daddy, fair enought it can break down, i believe MS have fixed this issue and also supply a 3year warrenty, people tend to forgot how bad the ps3 was on release, apart from that it looks like a george forman grill!

 

I don't see any problems with weak colours or jagged lines - and I rather resent being called a liar (by somebody who can't even spell the word) simply because I disagree with you.

 

The number of games is a ridiculous argument - of course the PS3 currently has fewer - it's only just been released. If that's a problem, then people should obviously buy an Xbox360 - but in the future, of course the PS3 will catch up.

 

Control pads will have rumble soon - the legal dispute was resolved.

 

I'm quite happy with my PS3.

[hoff]

Ive always been a playstation fan so i will stick with it and get a ps3 in the new year. As far as blu-ray and HD DVD goes, I would say if Sony has picked blu-ray that will ultimately concour. Sony wont make a mistake like that, and as Daston pointed out to me "Plus as sony own like 80% of the film publishers blu ray is the format of choice"

[Daston]

xbox 360 = lots of games, cheap, great online, nice graphics, perfect controle pad, basicly out the box your a ready to go hardcore gamer however if you want the added features of hd, wifi you do have to pay extra, however if you dont need them then it works out nice and cheap.

 

ps3 = few games, expensive, not as good as the 360 online, "nice graphics" too me nothing impresive (nor is xbox360) however i feel with the ps3 you should be getting more yet it still has sony signature, weak colours and jaggard lines ( any one who says there not is a lier), controle pad does not have rumble, feels too light, feels like cheap plastic, same old design, with uncomfortable positionings of the anolog sticks.

 

i would personally go for a xbox360 but again i would want a ps3 simply for GT and MGS all in all i think the 360 is the daddy, fair enought it can break down, i believe MS have fixed this issue and also supply a 3year warrenty, people tend to forgot how bad the ps3 was on release, apart from that it looks like a george forman grill!

 

 

360 the daddy? Come on! I have had 2 360's the first one I got when they first came out sold it around 6mths later as I went back to my PC. The second I got for Forza 2 and gears of war. GoW was ok nothing special and Forza 2 was pants GTR on the PC beat it hands down and was 4 years older!

 

The 360 elite costs £299 you can now pick up 60gb PS3's for cheaper than that so I fail to see how you can say the PS3 is cheaper. And using the normal 360 against the 60gb PS3 is not good comparison as the 360 does not have HMDI support where as the PS3 does.

 

Consoles are not for "hard core" gamers that would be PC's.

[tbourner]

The PS control pad design is FAR better than the box, I can't stand the way you have both hands facing different ways on the 360, at least the PS is symmetrical!!

And stop harping on about the graphics on the PS3, Mr BMX, turn off the noise reduction on your TV!!

 

My mate's got a 360, and apart from Gears of War I don't really like it that much. I almost liked Rainbow 6 but it crashed so many times I never really got a chance to make judgement.

 

I'll get a PS3 when I can afford one.

[tbourner]

Also, isn't Blu-Ray pretty much pointless unless your TV supports 1080p?

[Daston]

Blu ray supports all HD settings but also supports 1080p. But then thats like saying isnt having a HD console pointless unless you have HD

[DaveK]

Also, isn't Blu-Ray pretty much pointless unless your TV supports 1080p?

 

I was not expecting to see much difference when I tried the first Blu-Ray disc - but on my 1080i, it was very much better than a normal DVD.

 

Before I tried it, I thought it would be the last Blu-Ray disc I bothered with. Now - when I'm at the DVD rental place, I'm disappointed if I can't get the Blu-Ray version.

[Snooze]

Really ? Blimey, when I looked a few weeks ago it was looking like blu-ray was going to 'win'. Has this changed ? Or is it still too close to call ?

 

Either way it's annoying ! It's like DVD +r or DVD -r all over again

 

Oh - it could still easily go either way. Blu-ray was the initial darling of the film studios because of its copy protection.

 

Which has now been hacked.

 

But Sony including the Blu-ray in the PS3 was a good idea for them (plus actually owning one of the aforementioned studios helps!). Apparently Blu-ray rentals vs HD rentals is 70%-30%.

 

That said - most of the producers have now stated that current sales are based on early adopters and console buyers. When the real home market buys in, the cheaper production costs of HD-DVD, and Toshiba's ability to produce cheaper player units will probably bias things that way.

 

However..... with the comparatively slow uptake of HD thus far in the UK, though, its equally possible that mainstream HD will be so far delayed that Blu-ray will have already won!

 

Who knows!?!? I'm not buying into either technology myself, yet (although, secretly, I'd love Blu-ray to win out due to its technical superiority!).

 

So until its decided, I wouldn't consider Blu-ray an advantage of buying a PS3 (or, indeed, the HD-addon capability an advantage for the XBox360). By the time the world has gone Blu-ray (or not!), a standalone Blu-ray player is probably going to affordable anyway!

[bmx1lew]

I don't see any problems with weak colours or jagged lines - and I rather resent being called a liar (by somebody who can't even spell the word) simply because I disagree with you.

 

it's a fact run them side by side, playstations have all ways had faint light looking colors, compare it to the output of the xbox360 and you can tell the difference ( don't believe me look on gamespot.com for comparison) 360 gives more solid bright colors without a jaggard output, also I'm speaking from experience i have played and seen many ps3 games which i have been able to spot out the above, this is some thing that puts me off the ps3 because with such power i cant see why ironing these out is a issue, with a pc you have the option of anti analysis which seems to resolve this issue just fine, Sony invest millions into the ps3 and so on, and with the cost of the console i expect the smoothness of the 360, I'm not bias against the 360 as i don't own one, my friends own both i have played both and my opinion is made up with both faults in hand, the reliability of the 360 and what i think of the ps3 graphically should be able to do yet to see... i think the 360 is a better console

 

I hope you enjoyed standing on your soap box and been so petty to spot out spelling mistakes.

[MrHanky]

it's a fact run them side by side, playstations have all ways had faint light looking colors, compare it to the output of the xbox360 and you can tell the difference ( don't believe me look on gamespot.com for comparison) 360 gives more solid bright colors without a jaggard output, also I'm speaking from experience i have played and seen many ps3 games which i have been able to spot out the above, this is some thing that puts me off the ps3 because with such power i cant see why ironing these out is a issue, with a pc you have the option of anti analysis which seems to resolve this issue just fine, Sony invest millions into the ps3 and so on, and with the cost of the console i expect the smoothness of the 360, I'm not bias against the 360 as i don't own one, my friends own both i have played both and my opinion is made up with both faults in hand, the reliability of the 360 and what i think of the ps3 graphically should be able to do yet to see... i think the 360 is a better console

 

I hope you enjoyed standing on your soap box and been so petty to spot out spelling mistakes.

 

 

Personally I think the graphics are superior on the PS3 but I prefer the games on the Xbox360. Think you are taking this a bit too seriously to be honest, the reason the spelling mistake was pointed out was because you stated that anybody who didn't agree with you is a liar. This seems a little harsh to be honest as everybody has there own opinion and should be allowed to state it.

 

You think the 360 looks better and others don't.... fair enough, end of story

 

Mark

[Muffleman]

Oh - it could still easily go either way. Blu-ray was the initial darling of the film studios because of its copy protection.

 

Which has now been hacked.

 

But Sony including the Blu-ray in the PS3 was a good idea for them (plus actually owning one of the aforementioned studios helps!). Apparently Blu-ray rentals vs HD rentals is 70%-30%.

 

That said - most of the producers have now stated that current sales are based on early adopters and console buyers. When the real home market buys in, the cheaper production costs of HD-DVD, and Toshiba's ability to produce cheaper player units will probably bias things that way.

 

However..... with the comparatively slow uptake of HD thus far in the UK, though, its equally possible that mainstream HD will be so far delayed that Blu-ray will have already won!

 

Who knows!?!? I'm not buying into either technology myself, yet (although, secretly, I'd love Blu-ray to win out due to its technical superiority!).

 

So until its decided, I wouldn't consider Blu-ray an advantage of buying a PS3 (or, indeed, the HD-addon capability an advantage for the XBox360). By the time the world has gone Blu-ray (or not!), a standalone Blu-ray player is probably going to affordable anyway!

 

Pretty good response, thanks mate

 

I picked up the HD drive for the eggbox as I was stood there in Game and it was £130. I'd just treated myself to a new 42" panasonic plasma so though I'd grab the HD player

 

Now that the PS3s are dropping in price, I'm starting to be tempted but if I'm honest, it's more for blu-ray as I DO like my movies. But I think I'll sit this one out for a while longer, just use HD for now.

 

Good to see that it's not yet decided though

[bmx1lew]

Consoles are not for "hard core" gamers that would be PC's.

 

true as i am a pc gamer so i do agree, however i prefer racing games on consoles.

 

xbox 360 for hardcore console gamers...

[bmx1lew]

Personally I think the graphics are superior on the PS3 but I prefer the games on the Xbox360. Think you are taking this a bit too seriously to be honest, the reason the spelling mistake was pointed out was because you stated that anybody who didn't agree with you is a liar. This seems a little harsh to be honest as everybody has there own opinion and should be allowed to state it.

 

You think the 360 looks better and others don't.... fair enough, end of story

 

Mark

 

i agree i have but it's be cause i simply cannot see how no one else notices how jaggard lines are on the ps3 and it has been same as the 1st and 2nd and again on the second compare it to the xbox the xbox pull out smoother and more solid looking colours.