what do you consider hd

[Devina]

no amount of upscale will turn PS2 image like PS3 image, let alone high texture resolution PC games.

I don't think "upscale" is the right word.
PCSX2 doesn't just blow up small images so they're bigger (which is what I think of when I hear "upscale"), it re-renders all of it so it's crystal clear and HD.
It's unfair to think PS2 games in PCSX2 can never be "HD-quality" or worthy of the term "HD".

I can list lots of PS2 games with amazing graphics that are on-par or can surpass lots of PS3 games when they're rendered in HD. The YouTube channel has lots of examples:

http://www.youtube.com/user/PCSX2team/videos?view=0

I'll always go by the scientific definition that HD just means 1280x720 pixels or higher.

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

I don't think "upscale" is the right word.
PCSX2 doesn't just blow up small images so they're bigger (which is what I think of when I hear "upscale"), it re-renders all of it so it's crystal clear and HD.
It's unfair to think PS2 games in PCSX2 can never be "HD-quality" or worthy of the term "HD".

I can list lots of PS2 games with amazing graphics that are on-par or can surpass lots of PS3 games when they're rendered in HD. The YouTube channel has lots of examples:

http://www.youtube.com/user/PCSX2team/videos?view=0

I'll always go by the scientific definition that HD just means 1280x720 pixels or higher.

I'm trying to make a point that definitions may become subjective, so I do agree that technically HD IS 1280x720 screen resolution, for it is deemed the smaller resolution that allow actual "high definition" but no actual "high definition" definition is sensible without the concept of texture resolution, so a totally blur image can be shown in a full HD monitor and it may be beautiful and intended to be that way but can someone in good sense say that image is high definition?

That's what upscale does, it smooths the image and makes it a lot better than the original. And yes, many PS2 games, mainly from Square-Enix are incredibly "rich" in details for their relatively poor textures and so they benefits specially from upscale, so they become beautiful in a full HD (or just HD) equipment, but they aren't natively what is understood in the real definition of HD.

If wanting to "see" what I mean, take a PC game supplied in several texture resolutions to chose. Take a screenshot from the low resolution texture and then change to highest definition and take another screenshot, compare the two. Both are being shown at the same screen resolution but they look very, very different (and no amount of AA, upscale or such techs will make them look alike).

But the whole subject is taking the wrong road, there is no doubts the post processing enhances the image and by large amount, besides an image originally at low resolution might be beautiful and "well defined" in what it shows at same time that a full HD original image may not be what is desired (remember the example of photoshoping models to remove/correct imperfections mentioned somewhere else?).

By your definition is enough to buy a full HD TV (just as example) to have full HD experience, sadly that's not the case, you'll need actual program generated in full HD to it.

[Devina]

By your definition is enough to buy a full HD TV (just as example) to have full HD experience, sadly that's not the case, you'll need actual program generated in full HD to it.

No, I still agree with needing the input in HD.
If the source input is like, a TV show episode shot in the 90s in SD and then upscaled to HD, I wouldn't consider it HD either.

On my 40" 1080p LED tv, I hook up PCSX2 with the custom resolution of 1280x720 and I consider it HD since it looks great and crystal clear.

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

No, I still agree with needing the input in HD.
If the source input is like, a TV show episode shot in the 90s in SD and then upscaled to HD, I wouldn't consider it HD either.

On my 40" 1080p LED tv, I hook up PCSX2 with the custom resolution of 1280x720 and I consider it HD since it looks great and crystal clear.

That's what I meant with the definition becoming subjective and, let's state it literally then, HD is not synonymous of beauty, so there is nothing preventing a "flat" image to be beautiful, even that image from the simpler PS2 game will look better with upscale albeit gaining nothing in "details".

PS: In a lato sense, the real world images are among the richest and most detailed examples to explain the concept of HD, a camera at least 1280x720 is needed to capture that richness of details (a full HD will take it to the limits of human eyes perception capacity), animation is not the best example to that definition despite is undeniable it is fully "defined" in "what is shown". Again, subjectivity.

PPS: On the other hand, under another perspective, HD can be taken in a sense of fidelity, in this concept your definition is correct, there is nobody totally right and nobody totally wrong in this whole discussion

[Devina]

That's true. HD isn't necessarily beautiful, but it allows room for more beauty because more detail can be shown.

Ironically though, I hear some people get turned off from HD pornography because there's too much detail (where the sun don't shine).

[StriFe]

probably the same then with my LCD TV it's a HD Ready (1366*768) but with my 360 it does support 1080p (Probably my TV Upscales it)

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

That's true. HD isn't necessarily beautiful, but it allows room for more beauty because more detail can be shown.

Ironically though, I hear some people get turned off from HD pornography because there's too much detail (where the sun don't shine).

Ahh, that seems true, pornography can't compare with sensuality and eroticism. Too much of it and becomes just disgusting.

@strife79
Correct is saying it downscale it, but that's OK and looks great, that's what matters

[StriFe]

Why would it downscale it? it went from 720p to 1080p even so my new tv is going to be again Samsung ^^