Hardware Has 3DS HD?

[ZAFDeltaForce]

HD as in 1080p resolution? Nope.

HD as in 16:9 screen ratio? (Which is a common misconception) Nope.

HD as in kick ass, cutting edge graphics? Nope.

 

[MADKATZ99]

Err, HDTVs are rather well-defined at least.

I know they are, but half of the oldies buying TV's will be confused in the future when they learn that their 'Full HD' TV isn't actually the highest resolution. It's the terms they use to sell it that I disagree with. The definition of full implies that it contains as much or as many as possible. It's false advertising because it's possible to contain a lot more.

/rant.

 

[NES SNES V.B. N64 G.C. Wii WiiU]

The 3DS is worth it, however it does not have a HD screen. If you absolutely need a HD screen wait for the upcoming Next Generaton Portable by Sony.
That isn't exactly HD either. It's just 960 by 540 if i'm not wrong. HD is at least 1024 by 768.


However, it will most probably be able to output 720p via HDMI. I expect games will be slightly upscaled, but 720p videos will play pixel-perfectly.

Is the PS3P 16:9 ?
If not, it won't be pixel perfect.


QUOTE(MADKATZ99 @ May 28 2011, 07:22 AM)

What're the next TV's with even better resolution going to be, 'better than full hd'?

2K, 4K and Ultra HDTV/8K.

Yes, 540 by 960 (the NGP's screen) is a 16:9 aspect ratio. It might not quite be HD, but it still is bloody close.

 

[Veho]

I know they are, but half of the oldies buying TV's will be confused in the future when they learn that their 'Full HD' TV isn't actually the highest resolution. It's the terms they use to sell it that I disagree with. The definition of full implies that it contains as much or as many as possible. It's false advertising because it's possible to contain a lot more.

HD is a defined standard, and "full HD" means it's full to the extent of the HD standard. It's like saying a "full 2 liter bottle." There can be a larger bottle, and 2 liters isn't the maximum amount of liquid you can buy at one time, but the particular bottle is full to the brim and that's a full 2 liter bottle. It's not false advertizing. The next standard will get a name too, "ultra high definition," "real definition," "super mega ultra flash kazanga definition", and you'll have the "SMUFKD-ready" and "full SMUFKD" screens, and salespeople will be quick to explain that "full HD" isn't the maximum resolution you can buy, so why not get one of these new full-SMUFKD TVs; they cost five times as much, but they're "future proof" (riiiight

).

Anyway. Don't worry, people won't be in any danger of thinking "full HD" is the maximum resolution available.

 

[mysticwaterfall]

"super mega ultra flash kazanga definition"

+1 to that being the name, much more exciting then Ultra HD, 4K, etc lol

 

[naved.islam14]

No, it does not.

 

[Masterpaul]

Its bloody close to Hd considering the resolution of the screen in 3d and its size.

800 × 240

 

[chris888222]

Its bloody close to Hd considering the resolution of the screen in 3d and its size.

800 × 240


Its Hd density alright

Er... It is 400 X 240 per eye.

 

[Masterpaul]

Its bloody close to Hd considering the resolution of the screen in 3d and its size.

800 × 240


Its Hd density alright

Er... It is 400 X 240 per eye.

There talking about actual pixel numbers. So why should we consider what the eye actually sees? Im Just using hardware sheet spec out of context to prove my point

 

[DigitalDeviant]

Its bloody close to Hd considering the resolution of the screen in 3d and its size.

800 × 240

hd is at least 1080 x 720 pixels.

 

[BlueStar]

Its bloody close to Hd considering the resolution of the screen in 3d and its size.

800 × 240

hd is at least 1080 x 720 pixels.

We've been through this over the last few pages, the bar for HD standard is seemly set only with TV and monitor screens in mind, so the lable 'HD' is meaningless for a portable system as long as its definition is simply based on a pixel count rather than PPI/viewing distance. As far as I'm aware, no commercially available handheld device is technically 'HD', even ones which are marketed as such, like the Desire HD.

The question might as well be "Is anything smaller than a tablet/netbook HD"

Does the iPad count as HD? It's resolution is 1024 by 768 (giving it more pixels than a 1080x720 display), does the vertical resolution being higher then HD standard matter or does the fact the horizonal res is slightly short mean "OMG, not the magic number of 1080, not HD, my eyes, it burns!"

 

[DigitalDeviant]

Its bloody close to Hd considering the resolution of the screen in 3d and its size.

800 × 240

hd is at least 1080 x 720 pixels.

We've been through this over the last few pages, the bar for HD standard is seemly set only with TV and monitor screens in mind, so the lable 'HD' is meaningless for a portable system as long as its definition is simply based on a pixel count rather than PPI/viewing distance. As far as I'm aware, no commercially available handheld device is technically 'HD', even ones which are marketed as such, like the Desire HD.

The question might as well be "Is anything smaller than a tablet/netbook HD"

Does the iPad count as HD? It's resolution is 1024 by 768 (giving it more pixels than a 1080x720 display), does the vertical resolution being higher then HD standard matter or does the fact the horizonal res is slightly short mean "OMG, not the magic number of 1080, not HD, my eyes, it burns!"

yes I understand that, I was just responding to the previous poster claim that its HD, when clearly its not and can not be at that screen size.

 

[czesio165]

YES

 

[Nollog]

hd is at least 1080 x 720 pixels.

1280X720 you mean.

Please, someone kill this thread.
The arguments are repeating themselves.

 

[machomuu]

hd is at least 1080 x 720 pixels.

1280X720 you mean.

Please, someone kill this thread.
The arguments are repeating themselves.

For once I agree with you, Nollog.

 

[LordSturm]

*snip* ( delete this )

 

[a500lbmidgit]

Alright to get "HD" on a mobile device you need to achieve a pixels per inch count over 400 In that range pixels are truly invisible to the eye meaning you can have a 1 inch screen with a 400x400px res and be "HD"

 

[koji2009]

hd is at least 1080 x 720 pixels.

1280X720 you mean.

Please, someone kill this thread.
The arguments are repeating themselves.

1280x720 would be widescreen HD, the lowest "hd" resolution as set by TV standards would actually be 960x720i (4:3 display 720 lines, interleaved)

I used to have a 4:3 HD tv when they were first coming out (it was the cheapest HD TV at the time for the size, rear projection) though it was at least capable of 1080i

 

[Nollog]

My old landlord had a 4:3 hdtv.
I was just ignoring it, since it's stupid.

HD is a resolution and not a single thing else, a500lbmidgit.

 

[gautam]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.. Not unless Nintendo plans to bring another home console as well, shortly after.. Having a handheld have better graphics then the current home console would be.. Wrong.. Cool, but wrong..