Xbox dvd (1 Viewer)

[JasonMC]

I heard that the XBox will upconvert standard 480i DVD material into 1080i. Is this true and could you provide a link to the info if possible.
Thanks

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I'm no expert but I would say its possible either yes or no. The DVD ability isn't included, so it might not be able to upconvert the DVD, but it can play games at 1080i, so it might be able to. Does it really matter that much?

 

[Joel Mack]

I'm no expert but I would say its possible either yes or no.

Um....yeah...

------------------
"If we blow up, whatever's left of me is kickin' your butt."

 

[Dan B]

The Xbox is supposed to be able to scale DVD to 1080i by using the Ravisent Cinemaster software together with the NVidia chip. Ravisent ( www.ravisent.com ) used to have a downloadable PDF diagram of their Xbox Cinemaster software, but they've removed it from their website. I wouldn't count on it until we hear for sure, but the Xbox hardware is certainly capable of it...it just depends on the software.
-Dan

 

[Camp]

Morgan,
LOL!! but you totally forgot to work in a "Nintendo is better that Microsoft" argument into that post!

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Did I mention that the GameCube will have a DVD version available next year that plays DVD out of the box for the same price as the X-Box without the DVD function?
Hows that?

 

[Camp]

 

[Sean Oneil]

Too bad the topic of this post is about scaling DVD to 1080i ...which the GC can not do.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Nothing is known about the DVD-able GCN. It could very well scale to 1080i, but we'll have to wait for more info from Nintendo and Panasonic.
The GCN doesn't play DVDs at all (except for the $300 version available next year) but it has many good qualities over the XB and PS2 (and they have their qualities over the GCN). If DVD is really that important, go buy a DVD player.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

A great hdtv device that plays a few games too.

Did you forget that its a game console and not a DVD player? Thats the problem with the X-Box, it has lost the whole "playing games" idea and has gotten an "ultimate hardware piece" idea. Its not MS' fault, its the consumer's fault. Buying DVDs doesn't help MS, but buying games does. Every XB sold loses a lot of money that they hope to make back on software sales, but people buying just movies won't help that at all. This is why they shouldn't have added the DVD feature at all.
Its great that it has HDTV and 5.1 and such, but its not that important. If the games suck, the console is worthless. The PS2 at least has or will have great games, and Nintendo always delivers the good for their consoles, but nobody is sure about the XB. All their games are ports, have similar or uninspired ideas, or aren't worth it. For the few that don't fit in those categories, they still don't outweigh the upcoming library additions of the PS2.

 

[Dean Cooper]

I agree with Mike on this one, I don't think you can even buy a DVD that will upconvert to 720P or 1080i unless you go to PC. Another thing is the video processor is a considerable step up from a Geforce 3 card, which in itself costs well over the $300 mark. The Xbox is a hell of a deal hardware wise in my opinion.
Dean
PS: The games argument does not hold water with me. There are over 301 confirmed games for the Xbox as of today including over 80 exclusives, you can't tell me all of them suck.
[Edited last by Dean Cooper on August 20, 2001 at 01:26 PM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think the PS2 has many good games. Maybe not as many as some other consoles, but having beaten 2 records for the fastest selling games on a console within its first year and a half is pretty good. I personally don't think the DC had that many good games. Yes, they had great graphics and were fun, but most had glitches all over the place or were too short.
Nintendo has always had games on its system that redefine a genre or are thought of as the greatest games of all time. Mario 64 is considered by many as the ultimate 3-D platformer, and it was also one of (if not the) first 3-D platformers. Nintendo has always had revolutionary games.
The X-Box has many games being made for it, but that doesn't matter. Most of the exclusive titles are first or second party games, which means that they can only appear on the X-Box unless they go the way of Sega and only make games. Also, a lot of the exclusive titles can be made for other consoles within a year of the release or can be modified into a different game (ala Dead or Alive 2: HARDCORE). Nintendo hasn't announced that many games, and a lot of the ones they have announced are exclusives. Same goes for the PS2. Each of the Final Fantasy games (besides 11), along with many other games are PS2 exclusives, and the good ones aren't first or second party. Also, many of the X-Box games that are coming out that are going to be looked forward to are not using original ideas and are steriotypical of the genre (there are some who don't fit in this category, but they are not very abundant).
Overall, the only reason to get an X-Box is for the DVD function and the power. X-Box will have great exclusives, but so will PS2 and GCN (I think they will have more great exclusives).

 

[Sean Oneil]

Nothing is known about the DVD-able GCN. It could very well scale to 1080i, but we'll have to wait for more info from Nintendo and Panasonic.

Sorry kid, but if the output stage of the GC can not support 1080i resolution and refresh rates (it can't do 1080i at 60Hz or above) then it ain't gonna' happen.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Mario 64 may not have been your type of game, but it led the way for games like Banjo-Kazooie. The game wasn't just about collecting stuff (though that was most of the gameplay) and I still think it was a fun game. Nonetheless, it was revolutionary, and Nintendo is somehow able to keep making revolutionary games. I trust that they will do the same with the GCN.
If you just rented games for N64, then you missed a lot of great ones. Jet Force Gemini, Conker's Bad Fur Day, both Zeldas, all the Star Wars games, Diddy Kong Racing, and a few others were all worth purchases (can't think of any more off the top of my head).
[Edited last by Morgan Jolley on August 21, 2001 at 02:51 PM]

 

[Adam Nixon]

Where did this whole 1080i upconversion speculation come from?? I've heard NOTHING about this and I find it almost impossible to believe it will be implemented decently, if at all. If this was such an easy task to accomplish, I'm SURE that all of the major players in the home theater market would have jumped all over this feature in their current DVD player lines. It would sure sell a hell of a lot more HDTVs. I can't imagine getting a reference-quality picture out of a machine primarily designed to be a $300 gaming console.
This is, without question, the single most unique gaming forum I have ever been to on the net. You won't find discussions about progressive scan, Dolby 5.1 support, or widescreen capabilities at any other gaming site. Most console gamers just don't care what the X-box is capable of. I waded through 200 posts at Voodoo Extreme the other day that were almost entirely foul rants on Microsoft's "bundle incentive" to retailers. I can't ever remember a console launch that had as much vocal hatred directed at it from some corners of the gaming community.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the X-Box is too powerful. Its power will go to waste because nobody has broadband internet and a great home theater system, and if they do, they aren't in the same room. I will eventually have DSL, and I am lucky enough to have a great home theater setup (I can't take credit for it, its my dad's) so I will be one of the lucky people. But to the rest of america, 5.1, 1080i, and broadband don't make a difference. Thats the problem with the X-Box. All of the people with home theaters can say "oooh!" when they see what this thing can do, but how will you advertise a $300 console that is nearly the size of an old VCR to a kid who has a tiny 13" TV sitting in his room with nothing but the cruddy TV speakers? I can't wait for this console to come out because it will look great at my house, but all my friends will be disappointed because it will be too powerful. I think that we still have a few years for High Def to become as popular as CDs, and when its that big, then it should be in a gaming console. Buying an XB would be a waste of money because of all the features that most of america won't care about nor be able to use. The GCN and PS2 don't have these features, which in a way makes them less worth the money, but they also have excellent games to play that don't need 5.1 or High Def or broadband internet to be good. I'm hoping the XB has games that are as good as it is powerful.

 

[David_LM]

quote: I've said it before and I'll say it again: the X-Box is too powerful. Its power will go to waste because nobody has broadband internet and a great home theater system, and if they do, they aren't in the same room.[/quote]
But you are wrong again. The very same consumers that have a nice home theatre system and are willing to pay $300 for a game console are ditching dial-up modems for broadband. Because the price of game consoles have reached the $200-300 price point, adults are having more say in the actual purchase. And what I see out there is the following:
1) PS2 - game console, DVD capable
2) XBox - game console, DVD capable, broadband access
3) GC - game console
In my opinion, all three have or will have great games. With PS2 setting the benchmark as far as game consoles being integrated units and with MS expanding upon this, that leaves the GC the odd man out since it is not DVD capable at this time. I will gladly pay the extra $100 for the XBox for this extra power and take the chance this power is not wasted. Soon it will be said, when GC lands in 3rd place, that the GC is underpowered and lacking in features compared to the PS2 and XBox. With all else being equal (games), choose the console that gets you more bang for the buck (DVD, broadband). The Box Rocks!
[Edited last by David_LM on August 21, 2001 at 11:28 PM]

 

[Camp]

Hmmm...too powerful. Yes, I see now.
"Hey guys, nevermind. Stop boxing up those units. Morgan says the thing is too good. We don't do that here at Microsoft."
Thanks for saving us from utter failure caused by releasing too good of a product,
Bill Gates

 

[Gary King]

Where did this whole 1080i upconversion speculation come from?? I've heard NOTHING about this and I find it almost impossible to believe it will be implemented decently, if at all

Well, a large part of it comes from the fact that a good HTPC can scale DVD to 1600x1200@72P resolution (or better), and video wise, not much separates the Xbox from a high-end PC. The Matrix at 1600x1200 (well, 1600x900, with 150 pixels of black on top and underneath), 72Hz looks fantastic.
It's not so much a question of whether the Xbox will do a good job at HDTV scaling, as whether MS *wants* the Xbox to do a good job at HDTV scaling.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The GCN is easier to program for than the X-Box and more powerful than the PS2. Buyin a GCN with the modem that will be released later is still cheaper than an X-Box, and the DVD is not included because Nintendo wants it to be a gaming only machine (Panasonic is making the DVD GCN through a partnership with Nintendo). The GCN is not the least powerful of the 3, the PS2 is. It also depends on how a game is programmed. A game for PS2 could look excellent and a game for X-Box could look like crap. The GCN only plays games, nothing else, so it would be natural to be lacking in features. It uses mini-DVDs, so that would remove the ability to play CDs/DVDs automatically.
I'm not saying the power of the XB is bad, but it will go to waste. People will think about good graphics, but they will be paying for an ethernet port, the ability to do 5.1 in real-time, and the ability to play DVDs and games up to 1080i. Take out the DVD, the ethernet, the 5.1, and the High Def, and it would be cheaper and the features wouldn't go to waste. It shouldn't be features that sell a console, it should be the games. If someone wants a game with great graphics then thats OK, but if someone wants a console because of what it can do, then thats wrong (IMO). People support the X-Box because of its power, not its games. When that argument is brought up, someone mentions how the XB has some good games or has ports from other consoles. Nintendo and Sony have excellent games that will be exclusive to their consoles that aren't only first party games, but the XB has a bunch of ports and a few good looking exclusives. Not one game has been announced for the XB that is exclusive and original (aka: not a sequel or spin-off) that looks like it can't be done on the PS2 or GCN. That in itself is a waste of power. The PS2 has many games that are from series' that were established on the PSX, plus it has some great looking/playing exclusives. Same thing goes for the GCN (I've heard that some of them play really good, but I haven't played them).

With all else being equal (games), choose the console that gets you more bang for the buck (DVD, broadband).

The problem is that all is not equal in games. I think the PS2 and GCN will have better games than the XB because they have had great games announced or had great games on the PSX and N64. MS has no track record to run on. Also, DVD is not included with the XB, and the only reason it is in the PS2 is because they were able to put it in without adding too much to the price. Most people won't use the broadband, so why should you pay for it? The GCN gives you the option of buying the modem or not, plus you don't have to buy the DVD version of the GCN. These are options that the XB doesn't even have. If you have a DVD player already (which most of if not all of us do) then you don't need a DVD-playing GCN. A GCN with a broadband modem is still way cheaper than the XB without anything added to it. You can buy a GCN, a game, a second controller, and a memory card for less than an X-Box, yet just an X-Box is more bang for your buck because it has a modem and ethernet. The GCN is the best console because of it costs so little and is just a little less powerful than the XB (which will be obsolete hardware come winter 2002 because of the newer computer chips).
I can't warrant a purchase of an XB at all. You are taking a leap of faith as to whether the exclusive titles will be worth it (DoA3, The Matrix, and everything Sega makes for it could end up on another console) and you have to have a home theater and broadband internet to take advantage of the "bang for your buck" features. The PS2 and the GCN can be plopped in front of any TV and all of their features (less one or two minor ones) can be put to use. Want something more? Go buy it. Don't want something more? Don't buy it. They both are better values than the XB. I could care less about its abilities if the exclusive games are crap (I have seen nothing that would suggest otherwise).
Console - Capabilities (out of the box)
1)PS2 - DVD, CD, PSX, PS2
2)XB - XB
3)GCN - GCN
The PS2 seems to be of more value out of the box capability wise, so that argument is pointless. The XB requires that you pay for the DVD function. To use the broadband of the XB, you need to buy games, but those don't come out of the box. Also, the PS2 is the same price as the XB and has graphics that are just below the calibre of the XB and has 3 more features. The GCN is $100 less than both and ONLY plays games (which is the idea of a GAMING console). Also, MicroSoft's idea of online gaming is just gaming, as in no chat rooms, surfing, keyboard, mouse, e-mail, or anything else besides games. This means that the modem goes to waste until there are LAN or internet games made, and the internet services won't be up for a while. Sega at least allowed you to do something until online play was available, and Nintendo and Sony aren't releasing modems until they can be used for gaming.