Quick 360 display question :)

KnightStalker · 18 Jun 2007 at 07:32

Hey guys, just a quick question regarding the latest update....my 360 has been unplugged and unused for the last 3 month so ive missed out on the updates, but ive noticed new display modes. Like expanded and whatever....
The question is, what should i set all of it to now, i have a 19" WS so 16:10 ratio and 1440x900 max res, im using a VGA cable (obvioulsy).

If someone could let me know what to set it to please it would be helpful, then i can enjoy Forza 2 without it looking squashed.

KnightStalker · 18 Jun 2007 at 21:15

i guess with 60 views, people have no idea what im talking about?.

melchy · 18 Jun 2007 at 21:17

1280 x 768, Expanded. If the image doesn't look all that good set it back to 1280 x 768 Standard.

You could also try 1360 x 768 Expanded and see if you prefer that.

I cant recall if you have to set widescreen manually, or whether its automatically selected via selecting a widescreen resolution.

All standard, Expanded etc does is changes the colour depth (for lack of a better description) and makes the colour displayed look a little more "full", more like component.

KnightStalker · 18 Jun 2007 at 21:33

oh i see then, thanks for the reply, much appreciated

dokko · 18 Jun 2007 at 21:35

Are M$ planning on getting round to adding more resolutions such as a 1050, or was that all just internet talk?

kdd · 18 Jun 2007 at 21:43

Wish ms would add 1280x960

200sx · 18 Jun 2007 at 21:50

I read on the xbox forum that Microsoft believe they already support 16:10 through the use of 1280x768.

It really is the best resolution regardless of the size of your widescreen monitor (if aspect ratio is your priority). With 1280x768 3D objects (ingame graphics) in game are only stretched 3% or so vertically, i.e. only just noticable. Unfortunately, regardless of the resolution selected, all 2D objects (menus, rev counters, life meters etc) are stretched the whole 11% (16:9 to 16:10), this is very noticable.

I hope that made sense. If not then visualise BF2 on a widescreen display with the modified widescreen shortcut. 3D is the correct aspect ratio but the map for example is stretched.

What microsoft need to do is add black borders top and bottom to maintain aspect ratio on 16:10 displays.

200sx · 18 Jun 2007 at 21:59

kdd said:
Wish ms would add 1280x960

Why?

The only display I can think of that would support a 4:3 aspect would be a crt and that would support 1280x1024 (5:4) anyway?

I fail to see your point.

Pug · 18 Jun 2007 at 22:12

i wish there was a 1680x1050 option. Would be content then.

200sx · 18 Jun 2007 at 22:27

Pug said:
i wish there was a 1680x1050 option. Would be content then.

Even if Microsoft added 1680*1050 as an available resolution it would only correct the aspect ratio of the 3D portions of the image.

We need to separate the image from an Xbox 360 into two areas:

2D- Menus, sprites, icons, rev counters, scoreboards, health meters etc.

3D- any object consctructed using polygons.

The 2D images/objects will still be vertically stretched. Black borders are the only answer. (monitors with 16:9 support are proof of this)

Pug · 18 Jun 2007 at 22:30

i take your point, but surely having better 3d with 2D issues is still better than having wrong 3D and 2D issues?

Tried 1280x1024 widescreen, and everything looked tall (in Forza), switched to 13##x768 and it looks more accurate, but would prefer native res.

KNiVES · 18 Jun 2007 at 22:40

Yeah, I would also like a 1680x1050 option. MS has done everything but that resolution

fish99 · 18 Jun 2007 at 22:40

200sx said:
Why?

The only display I can think of that would support a 4:3 aspect would be a crt and that would support 1280x1024 (5:4) anyway?

I fail to see your point.

Except CRTs are typically 4:3 and 1280*1024 is a 5:4 mode. It will be treated as 5:4 by games too because the developers will have assumed anyone using 1280*1024 is using a 17"/19" TFT which are 5:4.

200sx · 18 Jun 2007 at 22:46

Pug said:
i take your point, but surely having better 3d with 2D issues is still better than having wrong 3D and 2D issues?

Tried 1280x1024 widescreen, and everything looked tall (in Forza), switched to 13##x768 and it looks more accurate, but would prefer native res.

Set the resolution to 1280x768 and it'll look more accurate still, in fact it'll look almost perfect (3D wise remember?).

I changed the dials from analog to digital to remove the the most obvious aspect ratio annoyance.

fish99 said:
Except CRTs are typically 4:3 and 1280*1024 is a 5:4 mode. It will be treated as 5:4 by games too because the developers will have assumed anyone using 1280*1024 is using a 17"/19" TFT which are 5:4.

At least with a crt you have the luxury of image resizing through the osd.

Pug · 19 Jun 2007 at 12:27

200sx said:
Set the resolution to 1280x768 and it'll look more accurate still, in fact it'll look almost perfect (3D wise remember?).

but i'm losing out on pixel density then tho surely? and as a result the quality and sharpness of the picture will be worse than would be if 1680x1050 were an option.

But thanks for the tip, i'll change it

dokko · 19 Jun 2007 at 12:30

Pug said:
but i'm losing out on pixel density then tho surely? and as a result the quality and sharpness of the picture will be worse than would be if 1680x1050 were an option.

But thanks for the tip, i'll change it

Don't know how you can run it on anything but the 768, no wonder you've had some issues.

My problem is i'm running on 768 with the 360 and it looks blurry when i switch it from my desktop which is on 1050.

We need more res options imo.

kdd · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:25

200sx said:
Why?

The only display I can think of that would support a 4:3 aspect would be a crt and that would support 1280x1024 (5:4) anyway?

I fail to see your point.

Because 1280x1024 is windowed on a non widescreen monitor whereas 1280x960 wouldn't be.

200sx · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:54

kdd said:
Because 1280x1024 is windowed on a non widescreen monitor whereas 1280x960 wouldn't be.

Windowed in what respect?

The dashboard should run full screen at whatever resolution you set it to.

Whether or not a game uses black borders at 1280x1024 is the choice of the game developer not microsoft.

A crt monitor does not exhibit the issues we are discussing here, by using the image resizing options in the osd you can adjust the aspect ratio manually, this is not something that can be done with the vast majority of tfts.

I understand that the pixel density at 1280x768 is relatively low compared to other options and that it moves the job of scaling from the 360 to the monitor. Remember that the 360 renders internally at 1280x720 and scales to the selected resolution, if the image is blurred it's the fault of the monitor's scaling hardware not the 360. Adjusting sharpness in the monitor's osd can improve things somewhat.

I have no doubt that microsoft could support 1680x1050 should they decide to, it will correct the 3D portions of an image but not the 2D and that I find unacceptable and a waste of time to be completely honest.

What is required is black borders at the top and bottom of the screen. I do not believe microsoft have direct control over this. Remember what I said above about 5:4 monitors and borders? it's the choice of the game developer to provide a letterbox option and not microsoft.

So...
Most importantly, I would first like game developers to acknowledge the popular use of 16:10 displays and to correct the aspect ratio distortion through the use of a 16:9 letterbox option for 16:10 displays in games.
Then I wouldn't mind if microsoft added 1680x1050 support to move the job of scaling back to the 360.

kdd · 19 Jun 2007 at 21:31

200sx said:
Windowed in what respect?

The dashboard should run full screen at whatever resolution you set it to.

Whether or not a game uses black borders at 1280x1024 is the choice of the game developer not microsoft.

A crt monitor does not exhibit the issues we are discussing here, by using the image resizing options in the osd you can adjust the aspect ratio manually, this is not something that can be done with the vast majority of tfts.

I understand that the pixel density at 1280x768 is relatively low compared to other options and that it moves the job of scaling from the 360 to the monitor. Remember that the 360 renders internally at 1280x720 and scales to the selected resolution, if the image is blurred it's the fault of the monitor's scaling hardware not the 360. Adjusting sharpness in the monitor's osd can improve things somewhat.

I have no doubt that microsoft could support 1680x1050 should they decide to, it will correct the 3D portions of an image but not the 2D and that I find unacceptable and a waste of time to be completely honest.

What is required is black borders at the top and bottom of the screen. I do not believe microsoft have direct control over this. Remember what I said above about 5:4 monitors and borders? it's the choice of the game developer to provide a letterbox option and not microsoft.

So...
Most importantly, I would first like game developers to acknowledge the popular use of 16:10 displays and to correct the aspect ratio distortion through the use of a 16:9 letterbox option for 16:10 displays in games.
Then I wouldn't mind if microsoft added 1680x1050 support to move the job of scaling back to the 360.

I tried the vga cable and the only res that ran fullscreen ok was 640x480 therefore 1280x960 would do also.
It's 2x 640x480!

fish99 · 19 Jun 2007 at 21:47

200sx said:
Windowed in what respect?

The point is CRTs are 4:3 and 1280*1024 isn't a square pixel mode on such a screen. Manually shrinking the screen horizontally isn't the answer since it means messing about in the menus, guessing when you've reached square pixel proportions, and having a picture that is smaller than your display which no one wants. Therefore I can see a point in wanting 1280*960.

Same reason I used to use 1280*960 for desktop and gaming when I owned a 19" CRT and not 1280*1024 like most people (who didn't realize they were getting a horizontally stretched image).