ANA - Microsoft's Scaling Technology

[torrefaction]

2old2play has posted a write-up (http://www.2old2play.com/News/ANA__Microsoft_s_Ace_In_The_Hole) on Microsoft's demonstration of their scaling technology.

ANA was designed along side the GPU so they work flawlessly together. So with the hardware solution, the Xbox 360 can re-res your game up or down from its native rendering (which in most cases is 720p). The Playstation 3 however can’t go up, only down. So a 720p native game can only display at 720p, 540p or 480p at the moment.

Interesting stuff. Kind of amusing that the 360 game is the one in 1080p.

[IrishWhiskey]

Well written, but we really need the original arstechnica article Head start: the Xbox 360 and the next generation here too.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/headstart.ars

It discusses ANA, and a side by side comparison of PS3 and 360 scaling abilities, with a grilling of Microsoft guys about the systems faults.

The 2old2play is basically just a summary of the whole arstechnica piece

So yeah, read both

[mkelehan]

Which is, to me, a HUGE plus for MS in my book; my HDTV doesn't do 720p at all, only 1080i and 480p.

[IrishWhiskey]

Microsoft’s solution to the problem was component cables, because every HDTV has component inputs... Sony on the other hand chose to embrace only the newest technology which includes HDMI, the only audio/video connector found on the Playstation 3 and in Sony's defence, the Xbox 360 as of right now does not support this next generation digital audio/video port.

This... doesn't sound right. I'm preeeetty sure the PS3 has more than just a HDMI port. Still, the main articles good.

[laggerific]

This... doesn't sound right. I'm preeeetty sure the PS3 has more than just a HDMI port. Still, the main articles good.

It could, but HDMI includes both video and audio over its one solo cable, so they perhaps have one port that breaks out into video and audio for the rca cables?

Either way, one of the comments at 2old2play was trying to downplay the superiority of the 360 over the PS3 at the moment. I want to just game, and I'm generally console agnostic, but because of my willingness to enjoy all consoles depending on the games I get to play I am totally open to rip them all to shreds. I think Sony has had crappy hardware for some time...and regardless of what they eventually do with their new hardware, it is laughable and always will be laughable because of all their bullshit hyperbole. HD gaming doesn't start until we say it does...bullocks (anyone have a citation for that quote? it's my favorite one, I should get the original source).

[Deadend]

I want to expand that to a webpage with the best quotes from various hype machines.

[mkelehan]

It really is too bad that neither system upscales DVDs.

[fable2323]

This... doesn't sound right. I'm preeeetty sure the PS3 has more than just a HDMI port. Still, the main articles good.

You are right. The PS3 has the standard audio/video port that the PS2 had. It also has an optical out for surround sound support. However, the HDMI cable does carry both the audio and video signal with just the single cable.

[torrefaction]

Well written, but we really need the original arstechnica article Head start: the Xbox 360 and the next generation here too.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/headstart.ars

It discusses ANA, and a side by side comparison of PS3 and 360 scaling abilities, with a grilling of Microsoft guys about the systems faults.

The 2old2play is basically just a summary of the whole arstechnica piece

So yeah, read both

Good call...I actually meant to link to that after I read it...but I forgot, and needed to get out of work.

Thanks! :D

[oldjadedgamer]

It really is too bad that neither system upscales DVDs.

The 360 does over VGA

[compta]

It really is too bad that neither system upscales DVDs.

I thought that the 360 upscaled DVD's with the fall dashboard update and a VGA cable?

edit: oldjadedgamer beat me to it.

[Jack B]

Why on earth do people continually screw up the cost of XBL per month? Have our math skills gotten so bad, we divide $50 by 12 and come up with $6 a month? For pete's sake, it's $4.16 at list (ie $50) and as low as $2.50 at a discount (ie $30 for 12 months). Case in point from the Arstechnica article...


Good, but soon people are paying $60-70 for the game, $6 a month for Xbox Live, and another $10 to get all the money and equipment they need to beat the game the first day. It’s just greedy, and it's certainly not the way I grew up playing games.

Other than the mistake on XBL monthly costs, a pretty fair and balanced article. They beat up Sony for problems with the lack of an upscaler. They beat of Microsoft for the small drives.

Both companies could fix these issues in the future. Sony could add a hardware chip for upscaling and Microsoft could offer a bigger drive (or some Vista or similar connection to the PC to allow saving of 360 files/movies etc).

They summed it up as Microsoft has a slight lead in graphics now and may maintain it over time.

His big question was whether Sony made the right choice by including Blu-Ray at an extra cost.

It's more complicated than that, IMO, but if you don't consider hardware costs, brand loyalty, developer support, how many AAA titles may appear on each console, exclusives, etc, it's one way to look at it.

[Jallopy]

I thought the 360 could upscale DVDs, it just needs to be through a VGA connection...

edit: everybody and their little sister beat me to it...

[Slack3r78]

Sounds to me like more evidence that Microsoft did a better job taking the big picture into consideration with their hardware design.

[KingGorilla]

Alright, we finished the few hundred thousand PS3 units, everything up to par?

It seems we forgot the scaler chips.

What do those do?

Ummm....nothing important, it will make people upgrade their televisions to the new Bravias...heh heh heh.

[Wolfgang]

It's more complicated than that, IMO, but if you don't consider hardware costs, brand loyalty, developer support, how many AAA titles may appear on each console, exclusives, etc, it's one way to look at it.

I agree. Aside from the obvious feature differences -- we also hear about PS3 being a bitch to develop for while the 360 anyone can, we hear about 360 games being basically usable on 2 platforms with near the same code base.

Microsoft planned the 360 well. The only thing it is missing is the Wiimote (which I am not a huge fan of, but see that it is fun and great for parties). Imagine if they force bundled a Wiimote type device with Halo 3 :)

[Rambilin]

Alright, we finished the few hundred thousand PS3 units, everything up to par?

It seems we forgot the scaler chips.

What do those do?

Ummm....nothing important, it will make people upgrade their televisions to the new Bravias...heh heh heh.


As insane as this sounds your HDTV especially the new Sony ones, or Mitsu's will make the old PS1/PS2 games look even worse than a standard def TV.

[Schnoogs]

As insane as this sounds your HDTV especially the new Sony ones, or Mitsu's will make the old PS1/PS2 games look even worse than a standard def TV.

Mostly because they come with HORRIBLE scalers. I hooked up my PS2 to my 1080p LCD via component and oh my god did it look bad.

[Kamalot]

Mostly because they come with HORRIBLE scalers. I hooked up my PS2 to my 1080p LCD via component and oh my god did it look bad.
It is a conspiracy to get people to buy new HD games/movies.

[ElectricMonk]

You know I think this scaler is moot. Sony may suffer for a couple years but technology is always progressing and what is now a $5000 tv with a $1000 scaler chip in two years is going to be a $2000 tv with a $100 scaler chip. once tvs catch up and everybody owns a 1080p set with a good scaler then the ana chip is going to be unnecessary.

[JimmyDanger]

Mostly because they come with HORRIBLE scalers. I hooked up my PS2 to my 1080p LCD via component and oh my god did it look bad.


Although I read somewhere they look better if you run them through a different channel on your TV, with the composite cables (and not HDMI). Apparently the lack of a dedicated upscaler affects the PS2 games the worse, since they were only designed to display at 480p max.

[Achilles]

Other than the mistake on XBL monthly costs, a pretty fair and balanced article. They beat up Sony for problems with the lack of an upscaler. They beat of Microsoft for the small drives.

Both companies could fix these issues in the future. Sony could add a hardware chip for upscaling and Microsoft could offer a bigger drive (or some Vista or similar connection to the PC to allow saving of 360 files/movies etc).The 360 hard drive is external and detachable, so the larger hard drive will probably happen sooner than later, but I really wonder how Sony would fix their problem. They could make a revision with a new chip, but until they do every machine they sell will not have one, which means games will have to deal with the problem for the rest of the PS3s history. They sure can't release a chip that you install yourself.

What Sony will likely do is try to fix the problem in software, which is extremely hard. If/when they get the fix to work pretty well it'll only work for movies, it won't work for games. They've got a pretty large problem on their hands, as I'm sure they're aware.You know I think this scaler is moot. Sony may suffer for a couple years but technology is always progressing and what is now a $5000 tv with a $1000 scaler chip in two years is going to be a $2000 tv with a $100 scaler chip. once tvs catch up and everybody owns a 1080p set with a good scaler then the ana chip is going to be unnecessary.Maybe, depending on how well it supports 1080p (upscaling DVDs, etc). But I don't think in 5 years everybody, or even the majority of people will own a 1080p TV.

[Jack B]

You know I think this scaler is moot. Sony may suffer for a couple years but technology is always progressing and what is now a $5000 tv with a $1000 scaler chip in two years is going to be a $2000 tv with a $100 scaler chip. once tvs catch up and everybody owns a 1080p set with a good scaler then the ana chip is going to be unnecessary.

True, every year this will be less of an issue. I think the bigger issue is that Sony has the more expensive console and seems to be one year behind and having a few issues, that require PS3 owners to wait even longer before it gets fixed (ie Online services, Blue-tooth connection issues, lack of a hardware scaler, removal of rumble, component cables). It just seems if you're going to be the more expensive hardware you should be the leader.

They have led in some areas, like bigger hard drives, no external power supply and quieter operation, but these issues shouldn't be happening to the higher priced spread... I think the PS3 from a hardware standpoint is a value. And Sony certainly is taking a loss to give us Blu-Ray, wireless, HDMI etc, but some these little issues shouldn't be happening to PS3 buyers. They likely spent $200 more for their console. They should be getting a better experience now, not in another year or two.

[KingGorilla]

Can this be fixed via firmware though? My video card alone scales from 640x480 up to 1600x1200 flawlessly.

[Rambilin]

You know I think this scaler is moot. Sony may suffer for a couple years but technology is always progressing and what is now a $5000 tv with a $1000 scaler chip in two years is going to be a $2000 tv with a $100 scaler chip. once tvs catch up and everybody owns a 1080p set with a good scaler then the ana chip is going to be unnecessary.


The 2005 and up Samsung models have a game mode that can be turned on for any input. The difference it makes on 480i and even most 480p games is astounding; I wish I had a capture card of some sort to show how good a job it does on titles like Disgiea(sp), Castlevania:SOTN, or any Neo game. Basically if you play older games, and want to go DLP you are stuck at the moment until the other manufactures implement some sort of game mode of their own.

[Ix Quantum xI]

The main problem is that Microsoft and Sony have different philosophies when it come to scaling.

Obviously Microsoft takes an image that is usually at 720p then upscales it through hardware to get a higher resolution.

Sony on the other hand has the idea that the image should begin at 1080p and then be dropped down to what ever resolution your tv can output at. The hardware has no problems dropping the resolution it just has the problem of upscaling it. The trouble for Sony is that they may have overestimated how easy it is to get games to run smoothly at 1080p. Obviously some games have done it (NBA 06, RR7, and Marvel Ultimate Alliance) and other games down the road will too (Lair and GT5 just to name a few) so this should become less of a factor in the future.

[Schnoogs]

Sony on the other hand has the idea that the image should begin at 1080p and then be dropped down to what ever resolution your tv can output at..

I guess Sony forgot that

a) PS2 games aren't 1080p
b) DVDs aren't 1080p
c) PS3 games can choose to render at 720p

[Johan]

Major fuck-up. Ridiculous.

[JimmyDanger]

The 2005 and up Samsung models have a game mode that can be turned on for any input. The difference it makes on 480i and even most 480p games is astounding;

Yeah baby yeah.
(Samsung owner)
And it looks wicked for 360 too...

[score]

Yeah baby yeah.
(Samsung owner)
And it looks wicked for 360 too...

I too am a proud owner of a Samsung set (LE37R74 (http://www.samsung.com/uk/products/television/tftlcd/le26r74bdxxeu.asp)). Its an LCD not DLP but also has a 'gaming mode'. Can't for the life of me work out what it does though. Do you think its the same as the DLP gaming mode? The difference between switching it on and off is a minor change in brightness/contrast (gaming mode = lower). I thought it's main use was to reduce gaming lag of which I don't get any (mode switched on or off)...

[phantomhitman]

It really is too bad that neither system upscales DVDs.
the 360 upconverts to whatever resolution you are running at

edit
bucn of guys beat me to it

[phantomhitman]

game modes turns off post processing (filters, color correction, render do dads, etc) to help speed up response times. i still see way better response times with vga than i do with component.

[phantomhitman]

As insane as this sounds your HDTV especially the new Sony ones, or Mitsu's will make the old PS1/PS2 games look even worse than a standard def TV.
Mostly because they come with HORRIBLE scalers. I hooked up my PS2 to my 1080p LCD via component and oh my god did it look bad.

These posts are funny. I hope you guys realize that you are taking 480i/p signals and converting them to 1080p most likely at 40 inches or more. There is not a tv on the planet that can take non hd content and make it look good at 1080p. Try watching SD tv content on a HD tv, it sucks ass.
Garbage in=Garbage out

3 posts ftw!!

[atariv8]

I'm a console agnostic but some people are missing the point of a decent scaler. Most displays have a resolution sweet spot and the 360 gives you the ability to choose any resolution you want to make your display look the best with any game or DVD. How is that anything but good? How is the PS3 not having a decent scaler justifiable? The article said that most of the PS3 games were changing the display to 720p and that it downscales only. Why would you want to buy a 1080p native display for the PS3? Find a display that has a native resolution of 720p and you'd be better off. Yeah, Sony really ushered in the 1080p era.

[Reanimated]

I guess Sony forgot that

a) PS2 games aren't 1080p
b) DVDs aren't 1080p
c) PS3 games can choose to render at 720p




Exactly. The scaler in the 360 does a lot more than just scale 360 games properly. It also scales up DVDs, and all of the back compat games up to 1080p. Anyone who has played a PS2 game on the PS3 and experienced just how absolutley assy looking it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCD9TwLrVs&eurl) will tell you how important it is to have a hardware scaler. While 360 owners will enjoy their back compat games in 1080p with 4xAA added, PS3 owners will be playing their back compat games looking WORSE than on the PS2. Absolutely inexcusable for a 600 dollar machine.

[lion2]

Can this be fixed via firmware though? My video card alone scales from 640x480 up to 1600x1200 flawlessly.

This is what I find confusing about upscaling for the consoles. Isnt upscaling just stretching or shrinking the image to fit the current resolution without changing its quality? PC's have been upscaling for years using cheap video cards. Don't the video cards on these consoles have that function built-in? I see no reason why the PS3 can't upscale since it uses a PC graphics chip.

If I oversimplified things, can someone please explain to me exactly what an upscaler does?

[phantomhitman]

There is a difference between upconversion and scaling but I cannot explain it in text format. Think of it like this (Im reaching here, very simple explanation):
A scaler can take the original game and render it out to whatever resolution you want. This is good because there is no loss in quality no matter what resolution you output to.
If you upconvert you are kind of "strecthing the image" to fit the new resolution. This will not look as good as a something initially created at a certain resolution. Try taking a 200x200 image and stretching it to 2000x2000, see how shitty it looks?!

[AntB]

These posts are funny. I hope you guys realize that you are taking 480i/p signals and converting them to 1080p most likely at 40 inches or more. There is not a tv on the planet that can take non hd content and make it look good at 1080p. Try watching SD tv content on a HD tv, it sucks ass.
Garbage in=Garbage out

3 posts ftw!!

Is there a decent 42" LCD HDTV on the market that does SDTV content even half way decently?

[phantomhitman]

I have not seen a single hdtv that can do sd decent regardless of size of company. Some people like to argue about how some tvs can do sd better than others, but do not expect much at all from sd content on hdtvs. It is not a hdtv issue, it is more of people ignorance in assuming that hdtvs can magically make a sd picture look better. It is an older technology that sucks ass. You can use the same example as above, go make a 640x480 image and then enlarge it to 1092x1080 or even 720p resolution. You will notice all the grain and flaws in the picture and the hdtv will magnify them.

[lion2]

A scaler can take the original game and render it out to whatever resolution you want. This is good because there is no loss in quality no matter what resolution you output to.
Im still confused. What Im getting from this is that the upscaler is doing the equivalent of what a resolution switch would do in a game. It doesn't make much sense to me because the all games can be developed using a much lower resolution and just allow the upscaler to do the work when showing it at higher resolutions at no performance cost.


If you upconvert you are kind of "strecthing the image" to fit the new resolution. This will not look as good as a something initially created at a certain resolution. Try taking a 200x200 image and stretching it to 2000x2000, see how shitty it looks?!

I was always able to watch a DVD on a PC and it would look the same whether I had I saw it at 640x480 or 1600x1200 so is what my PC doing upscaling or upconverting?

[phantomhitman]

I dvd is one set resolution, so anytime it is played at something different it is being upconverted (made bigger). Unless you have a 40 inch pc monitor you will not see what I am talking about.
A scaler is basically like setting different resolutions in your video card setttings (that is an over simplified way of looking at it).

[lion2]

Im trying to find a more detailed explanation of an upscaler and google is just spitting out links to upscaling DVD players. Anyone have links?

I dvd is one set resolution, so anytime it is played at something different it is being upconverted (made bigger). Unless you have a 40 inch pc monitor you will not see what I am talking about.
A scaler is basically like setting different resolutions in your video card setttings (that is an over simplified way of looking at it).

[phantomhitman]

go to the avs forums, they can give a more in depth explanation that I am struggling to do. sorry :(

[torrefaction]

http://hometheater.about.com/od/dvdbasicsfaqs/f/dvdbasics12.htm

The Upscaling Process

Upscaling is a process that mathematically matches the pixel count of the output of the DVD signal to the physical pixel count on an HDTV, which is typically 1280x720 (720p) or 1920x1080 (1080i).

720p represents 1,280 pixels displayed across the screen horizontally and 720 pixels down the screen vertically. This arrangement yields 720 horizontal lines on the screen, which are, in turn, displayed progressively, or each line displayed following another.

1080i represents 1,920 pixels displayed across a screen horizontally and 1,080 pixels down a screen vertically. This arrangement yields 1,080 horizontal lines, which are, in turn, displayed alternately. In other words, all the odd lines are displayed, followed by all the even lines.

The Practical Effect Of DVD Upscaling

Visually, there is very little difference to the eye of the average consumer between 720p and 1080i. However, 720p can deliver a slightly smoother-looking image, due to the fact that lines and pixels are displayed in a consecutive pattern, rather than in an alternate pattern.

The upscaling process does a good job of matching the upscaled pixel output of a DVD player to the native pixel display resolution of an HDTV capable television, resulting in better detail and color consistency.

However, upscaling, as it is currently implemented, cannot convert standard DVD images into true high-definition images. In fact, although upscaling works well with fixed pixel displays, such as Plasma and LCD televisions, results are not always consistent on CRT-based high definition televisions.

[ElectricMonk]

The scaler chip does exactly what your computer does when it scales a video. The very basic bilinear scaling operation is cheap to perform but does not look as good as something that tries to scale images in a way that clarifies the shapes of the original image better. And the more complicated they get, the more cpu intensive it is. Many video card drivers now have scalers for movies which use pixel shaders to do stuff that is too complicated for even your main processor to perform.

Obviously, if a tv needs to include a complicated graphics chip it's going to raise it's price. Your wal-mart brand tv's are going to include the cheapest scalers they can possibly stick in because users are only going to buy into the '1080p' sticker and not realize that all their old stuff is going to look worse than it did on their sd tv.

As for the ps3, it could scale things nicely in software, but that would mean using video card resources for scaling the screen instead of using it to render graphical effects.

[Schnoogs]

The scaler chip does exactly what your computer does when it scales a video. The very basic bilinear scaling operation is cheap to perform but does not look as good as something that tries to scale images in a way that clarifies the shapes of the original image better. And the more complicated they get, the more cpu intensive it is. Many video card drivers now have scalers for movies which use pixel shaders to do stuff that is too complicated for even your main processor to perform.

Obviously, if a tv needs to include a complicated graphics chip it's going to raise it's price. Your wal-mart brand tv's are going to include the cheapest scalers they can possibly stick in because users are only going to buy into the '1080p' sticker and not realize that all their old stuff is going to look worse than it did on their sd tv.

As for the ps3, it could scale things nicely in software, but that would mean using video card resources for scaling the screen instead of using it to render graphical effects.


Well said....

[Vanthar]

I don't see how this chip improves the graphical quality of any xbox 360 games. It's not adding detail that wasn't there before, so someone please explain to me why it matters that your 720p game is displayed in 1080p?

[Schnoogs]

I don't see how this chip improves the graphical quality of any xbox 360 games. It's not adding detail that wasn't there before, so someone please explain to me why it matters that your 720p game is displayed in 1080p?

Because your set is 1080p for starters...did you watch the video of the side by side comparison?

In some cases it will DOWNGRADE the resolution of your signal and in others it introduces rendering artifacts that weren't there to begin with.

It's not about faking detail that wasn't there to begin with...

[Vanthar]

Because your set is 1080p for starters...did you watch the video of the side by side comparison?

In some cases it will DOWNGRADE the resolution of your signal and in others it introduces rendering artifacts that weren't there to begin with.

It's not about faking detail that wasn't there to begin with...

Sorry maybe I'm being stupid but that didn't make any sense to me. And no I don't even know what video your talking about?

[Achilles]

Sorry maybe I'm being stupid but that didn't make any sense to me. And no I don't even know what video your talking about?If you just expand an image it looks like crap, if you have something actually figure out what it should look like at the higher resolution it'll look better. You're not adding detail, you're just doing things like eliminating stair-stepps, correcting colors, and sharpening the existing detail in a way that it wouldn't have been if you'd just inflated the image. You're not adding anything, you're repairing the damage done by inflating the image and trying to make it look like it belongs in that resolution.

These other guys in the thread know more about it than me and I hope they can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I gather.

[Schnoogs]

Sorry maybe I'm being stupid but that didn't make any sense to me. And no I don't even know what video your talking about?

Read the post above...

[Vanthar]

If you just expand an image it looks like crap, if you have something actually figure out what it should look like at the higher resolution it'll look better. You're not adding detail, you're just doing things like eliminating stair-stepps, correcting colors, and sharpening the existing detail in a way that it wouldn't have been if you'd just inflated the image. You're not adding anything, you're repairing the damage done by inflating the image and trying to make it look like it belongs in that resolution.

These other guys in the thread know more about it than me and I hope they can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I gather.


Thank you that makes more sense, but what's the point? If you have to do all these filters and effects to make it look better then shouldn't the original image and resolution look better?

[Achilles]

Thank you that makes more sense, but what's the point? If you have to do all these filters and effects to make it look better then shouldn't the original image and resolution look better?Nope, because you're displaying it on a 60" 1080p TV and anything that's in the resolution of Super Mario 1 will have pixels the size of your thumb.

In other words you're going to be inflating it anyway because your TV's awesome and displays in a high resolution. Best that the console knows that and makes the game/video look right on it. It's like playing DVDs on an upscaling DVD player, the image is just sharper because it's in your TVs resolution instead of something smaller and then blown up to fit the number of lines your TV is displaying. They're doing a ton of processing work on every frame to get it to gracefully fit the number of lines your TV has, making a much better picture than you'd get even if you were displaying it on something that was the same size as the original.

It looks better than something that would fit the original low-res image because you still have the higher resolution which means a better image because the area that would normally be blurry because of the small amount of lines your TV has is now filled in and sharp.

[phantomhitman]

i gives up. i tag achilles in, have fun.

[Vanthar]

..snip..

Thanks for the explanation on it. I guess I just never found a huge issue with something like FF12 on my tv. Does it look very good? No, but neither does SD TV, which is generally what I equate my old games too. I can understand that things won't look so distorted, but to me the textures would remain the same and thus the games not gonna look that good anyway.

[Kamalot]

Thanks for the explanation on it. I guess I just never found a huge issue with something like FF12 on my tv. Does it look very good? No, but neither does SD TV, which is generally what I equate my old games too. I can understand that things won't look so distorted, but to me the textures would remain the same and thus the games not gonna look that good anyway.
The problem is that SD already looks poor. When you run it through a bad scaler, it makes the image even worse. Yes, the textures are low resolution but now they are low resolution AND being displayed poorly.

It shouldn't look so bad, especially when you can get a VERY GOOD scaler DVD players that make DVDs look SIGNIFICANTLY better when running on HDTVs.

The more I think of it, the more I really believe that the PS3 does not have a scaler on purpose, to help convince people to buy HD movies and games by making SD movies and games look terrible.

[Achilles]

The problem is that SD already looks poor. When you run it through a bad scaler, it makes the image even worse. Yes, the textures are low resolution but now they are low resolution AND being displayed poorly.

It shouldn't look so bad, especially when you can get a VERY GOOD scaler DVD players that make DVDs look SIGNIFICANTLY better when running on HDTVs.

The more I think of it, the more I really believe that the PS3 does not have a scaler on purpose, to help convince people to buy HD movies and games by making SD movies and games look terrible.That sounds really cynical but you may be right. It's supposed to be a multi-media beast yet it's missing a feature that's extremely common in DVD players these days. If you compare a blu-ray movie to a DVD on your PS3 the blu-ray will look clearly better when it may look just a little better than an upscaled DVD player.

[Vanthar]

That sounds really cynical but you may be right. It's supposed to be a multi-media beast yet it's missing a feature that's extremely common in DVD players these days. If you compare a blu-ray movie to a DVD on your PS3 the blu-ray will look clearly better when it may look just a little better than an upscaled DVD player.

Well, I will say that Blu-ray(and I will assume HD-DVD) are noticeably better at 1080p than any upscaling DVD player will put out current DVD's. It probably has a lot to do with the size of the TV to make this so noticeable but the Ricky Bobby blu-ray movie packed in with my PS3 is amazing in picture quality and while watching upscaled movies still looked good, you can see a large quality and sharpness difference in the HD content. I do think that the PS3 will eventually software scale DVD's seeing as it uses HDMI.