29 replies to this topic

[Eggplante!]

theres no reason for it to be HD dumb thread its HD down sampled to 480p+ so your getting effectivly HD anyways and the gamepads screen to pixel count is higher than a lot of HD tvs

Your argument makes no sense. HD provides higher fidelity. If you downsample HD to 480p, yes it might look better than what you would traditionally get as 480p content, but it's still not HD. Not even close. Compare an HD image downsampled to 480p and another that is 1080p or even 720p for that matter. You'll see a world of difference.

Not only is it pointless, its impossible.

The system was designed for a 480p gamepad, not just with fillrate, but in data streaming speed as well. An hd image would not only demand more from the gpu, but the data size being streamed to the gamepad would exponentially increase, and would likely not only need to take more than one report to deliver, increasing lag, but no longer be able to be interleaved decreasing distance from the system.

I wouldn't say it is impossible. Nintendo has designed their streaming protocols from the ground up. We don't know what kind of throughput they get or how much they're using right now. It's smart for them to have designed something that can have its functionality opened up so that, as developers get better with system resources, they have more bandwidth available. Now, Nintendo doesn't typically think that far ahead, I don't think, so I'm not saying it's there, but the fact is that we don't actually know what Nintendo is doing under the hood and how expandable it is.

[3Dude]

Your argument makes no sense. HD provides higher fidelity. If you downsample HD to 480p, yes it might look better than what you would traditionally get as 480p content, but it's still not HD. Not even close. Compare an HD image downsampled to 480p and another that is 1080p or even 720p for that matter. You'll see a world of difference.

There is truth to his argument.... and yours as well.

Image quality consists of 2 main factors, Well, really just one, they are linked, so one is typically the product of the other, unless you do something silly, which i will use as an example later: resolution, which is what you are talking about, the number of pixels, and ppi, pixels per inch aka pixel size.

You can have a resolution of 4k, but if your pixels are the size of lego blocks, you are getting a lousy picture.

The pixels in the gamepad are much much smaller than those in an hdtv, so despite having less pixels, it still has a comparable image quality, particularly with supersampling (downsizing a much larger picture) giving the appearence of higher resolution.

Although, increasing the resolution within the same physical screen size ALSO increases ppi (makes pixels smaller so you can fit more) for a double whammy of image quality increase.

Which, unfortunately, is impossible for the gamepad without changing the wii u console.

[Eggplante!]

There is truth to his argument.... and yours as well.

Image quality consists of 2 main factors, Well, really just one, they are linked, so one is typically the product of the other, unless you do something silly, which i will use as an example later: resolution, which is what you are talking about, the number of pixels, and ppi, pixels per inch aka pixel size.

You can have a resolution of 4k, but if your pixels are the size of lego blocks, you are getting a lousy picture.

The pixels in the gamepad are much much smaller than those in an hdtv, so despite having less pixels, it still has a comparable image quality, particularly with supersampling (downsizing a much larger picture) giving the appearence of higher resolution.

Although, increasing the resolution within the same physical screen size ALSO increases ppi (makes pixels smaller so you can fit more) for a double whammy of image quality increase.

Which, unfortunately, is impossible for the gamepad without changing the wii u console.

I understand what you're trying to say a bit more now, but I still don't see the merit of it. The first point you made had no mention of changing screen size, which is where the miscommunication might have been.

However, saying that the Wii U is not capable of displaying a higher PPI on it's GamePad without changing the console might not be true. You'd need to change the GamePad, yes, but as I mentioned above, Nintendo hasn't told us about the technology they're using under the hood to stream video to the GamePad. Maybe there is more bandwidth available than they're using or than we know about, and a higher PPI screen - let's say something with a 1708x960 resolution on the same 6" screen instead of the 854x480 one (yes, I know that's a total stretch) - and it would be possible.

[3Dude]

I understand what you're trying to say a bit more now, but I still don't see the merit of it. The first point you made had no mention of changing screen size, which is where the miscommunication might have been.
However, saying that the Wii U is not capable of displaying a higher PPI on it's GamePad without changing the console might not be true. You'd need to change the GamePad, yes, but as I mentioned above, Nintendo hasn't told us about the technology they're using under the hood to stream video to the GamePad. Maybe there is more bandwidth available than they're using or than we know about, and a higher PPI screen - let's say something with a 1708x960 resolution on the same 6" screen instead of the 854x480 one (yes, I know that's a total stretch) - and it would be possible.

gpu isnt the problem, resolution can be increased by simply decreasing scene complexity. The problem is that a larger resolution is still a bigger data size even AFTER its finished and rasterized.

The problem is hardware, specifically the wi-fi out, which is custom made to output a precise packet size, interleaved, at unprecedented speeds (way, WAY faster than a ps3 or 360 controller. Faster than a tv can display the image....) Simply De-interleaving the data can increase report size by 2x, (still not enough for hd) but.... will cripple signal distance to a few feet.

They would need to change the systems wifi out for an hd gamepad.

[Eggplante!]

gpu isnt the problem, resolution can be increased by simply decreasing scene complexity. The problem is that a larger resolution is still a bigger data size even AFTER its finished and rasterized.

The problem is hardware, specifically the wi-fi out, which is custom made to output a precise packet size, interleaved, at unprecedented speeds (way, WAY faster than a ps3 or 360 controller. Faster than a tv can display the image....) Simply De-interleaving the data can increase report size by 2x, (still not enough for hd) but.... will cripple signal distance to a few feet.

They would need to change the systems wifi out for an hd gamepad.

Again, we don't know if they've already accounted for that packet size in the design of the Wii U. Odds are, they haven't, but it's still possible that the packets they've been sending for the current titles are not using up all the bandwidth that their WiFi protocol is capable of.

[3Dude]

Again, we don't know if they've already accounted for that packet size in the design of the Wii U. Odds are, they haven't, but it's still possible that the packets they've been sending for the current titles are not using up all the bandwidth that their WiFi protocol is capable of.

Yes, we do, the gpu has been xrayed, its over. We know now why having 2 gamepads halves the framerate of each gamepad.

also, look up interleaving, its extremely important to what youve been arguing; it doubles packet size, but without it, your gamepad would stop working past a few feet.

[RolledUp20s]

whats the difference with say, my apple macbook air streaming 1080p films to my apple tv? ...so 1080p streaming can be done...and i can do that around the house aswel.

[3Dude]

whats the difference with say, my apple macbook air streaming 1080p films to my apple tv? ...so 1080p streaming can be done...and i can do that around the house aswel.

Your macbook was designed to stream 1080p interleaved, not 480p interleaved.... Its a macbook.

You seem to be under the erroneous assumption someone said 1080p cant be done. That is not the subject. The subject is, the wii u cant, because it wasnt designed to.

Edited by 3Dude, 05 February 2013 - 04:50 AM.

[RolledUp20s]

I thought u said 1080 would limit us to 2ft.
if the tech is there..they may have put it in for a future update. U may think you know everything on this, but then..did your hands make it? :\

[3Dude]

I thought u said 1080 would limit us to 2ft.
if the tech is there..they may have put it in for a future update. U may think you know everything on this, but then..did your hands make it? :

It would... on the wii u (although, realistically, 1080 is out of the question, even 720 is questionable).

Since i have said multiple times to google interleaved signal but you have been too damn lazy to do it, insisting on arguing from ignorance instead, i will explain it.

Interleaving a signal is a way to boost range by strengthening the signal by repeating parts of it in a redundent manner, on multiple signals, slightly out of phase, so lost parts of one signal is covered... on the other like insurance.

This can affect everything from improved sample rates to better short range commo.

The wii u was designed to strongly interleave a 480p signal so it can be recieved, quickly, over a respectable difference. This is the max it was designed to do.

The only way to free up bandwidth to send a bigger signal, is to start removing the interleaving. which continuing to do produces continually degraded signal and reduced range.