Talk:PlayStation Portable Slim & Lite series/3000 talk

Explain/Expand on How PSP-3000 Might Block Homebrew/Hacks?

Would it be helpful to explain how the PSP-3000 might block homebrew and hacks? It would in fact be an obvious thing of Sony to do but would one have to wait until there is proof and when (or if) the hacking community can't hack it with what is currently available? There are a few sources that foreshadow that this will be true (here and here) but in order for this to be on Wikipedia it has to be proven right? (P.S. Sorry if I'm doing something wrong or not correctly following a policy or convention since I'm very new here). Game4set (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's something that is going to have to wait until people get hands on experience with it. How it might block hacks is purely speculation, and is thus not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You definitely did a good job following conventions by bringing this up on the talk page first, so I'd say you're doing a good job so far. Welcome! Khalfani Khaldun 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably quote reliable sources speculating on how it might stop hacks.Mr T (Based) (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's really known right now is it will have a different motherboard and probably wont work with Pandora. There's even a TA-88 v3 motherboard of the PSP2000 that doesn't work with Pandora. There's no point in adding it to the article though, just be patient. Akadewboy (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need Image

This article needs an image of the PSP-3000. Yooo67 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty out there, but still no fair use I'm sure. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White

How come no mention of the "Pearl White" http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=784475 PSP-3000? Has it been cancelled? ^---SilentRAGE! 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only in Japan, I think... Yooo67 (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSP-3000 was not delayed

The references saying that the PSP-3000 was pushed back are not acurate. The gamespot one says that it is coming out on the 15th in europe, but that the PS3 is coming out on the 31st. Maybe it was misread, which, judging from the wording, would be easy to do. As for the Amazon.com link, it is not viable because it is an anticpiated date, not the official date released by Sony. As far as I can tell, the dates are still the 14th for NA, the 15th for Europe, and the 16th for Austrailia.

I am not adept in the HTML language, and I really don't want to screw this article up. So could somebody please edit this for me? MastrCake (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's sorted now, nicely pointed out.Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr T. MastrCake (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSP Brite? and AUS Release Date

Two webpages to look at, first one says that the PSP 3000 will have the commercial name of PSP Brite. Is this a reliable source? http://www.joystiq.com/tag/psp-3000

Second one is about the release date for the psp 3000 in Australia http://www.mypsp.com.au/NewsDetail.aspx?id=801

Please, could an admin or someone higher check this out and add the nessacary infomation into the article.

Thanks, user:dingyv03

ps. also check out this http://www.pspfanboy.com/tag/psp-brite.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.142.250 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for page move?

I was under the impression that page moves to "better article titles" should always be discussed on the talk page before someone arbitrarily moves the page based on their own judgment. So, what do other authors think of this page move? Anyone agree with me and think that it was not a good idea? Khalfani Khaldun 08:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). PSP-3000 series is definitely not the most popular name for the subject of this article. That name is "PlayStation Portable". As there's already an article at that title, we need to disambiguate it somehow, and that's where the "PSP-3000" moniker comes in. And no, page moves do not need to be discussed prior to being performed, especially when they're uncontroversial. See Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Now, briefly back to the subject of the article title: I'll confess that I wasn't sure if "Slim and Lite" belonged in the title, but as this is basically just a few minor revisions to the PSP-2000 series (the "Slim and Lite") I didn't believe the name would change. Is the 3000 series still called this? If not, we can probably move the page to PlayStation Portable (PSP-3000 series) to shorten the title. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" The new title certainly does not apply to that common name convention. The most common name for all three versions of this product is the PSP. For this version, it is definitely just PSP-3000. Have you read any of the source articles? It isn't referred to by any other name, aside from the unofficial PSP-Brite, which seems to only be used in one venue. In addition, the Slim and Lite name has never been applied to the 3000 series, even by Sony, so this is not an appropriate name. The fact that you "don't believe" the name would change is pure speculation (please note point number 2 there). I think the only move argument you could have actually provided for moving the original article would have been to move it to "PSP (3000 series)" or just "PSP-3000." Basically my point is that I didn't really have a problem with the article being moved, but the name it was moved to was in no way (from what I can tell) appropriate for the subject. Khalfani Khaldun 17:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry I didn't ask. But this is a wiki, it's not like the whole world came crashing down because I moved it. And I'm certainly not going to feel guilty for getting it away from what was a poorly constructed title. So, being constructive, if you'd like to move it to PlayStation Portable (PSP-3000 series), I have no problem with that. I would not, however, support it being moved to any title reducing "PlayStation Portable" to "PSP". By the way, before you go making assumptions about the motivations of people on here, you might want to read over this: assume good faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I come off strong, it seems I have upset you. However you must understand that it's difficult to assume good faith when the first time an editor shows up in an article's history is by moving from one title to another title that was at least equally poorly constructed. I do, however, apologize for offending you. Khalfani Khaldun 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to hear from more editors on this topic before moving the article again. Anyone else? Khalfani Khaldun 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit to not being overly-familiar with article naming conventions. The PSP-3000 series is just a hardware revision of the Slim and Lite, it will be sold as the S&L AFAIK, but the most popular term for it is the PSP-3000. So we could use either and have an 'accurate' title.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the product is still called "PlayStation Portable", yes? And that's the issue at hand. Sure, this specific model of the PlayStation Portable may be the PSP-3000 series (or "PSP Brite" or whatever), but the base name is still "PlayStation Portable". The product name didn't change, merely the model. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, yes, it will still be sold as the PSP S&L, but the most popular name used currently, to differentiate it from the PSP S&L 2000 is PSP-3000.Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and that's what this title ("PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite (PSP-3000 series)") does-- uses the most common name ("PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite"), then uses the "PSP-3000 series" specifier to further refine the title. This is exactly how titles are constructed on Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite" isn't the most common name for the previous model ("PSP Slim & Lite"), and it is certainly not the most common name for this model ("PSP-3000"). The whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that this is a minor revision of the previous model, and thus would be marketed as or referred to by that name. There is no strong evidence of that, from Sony or anywhere else. The truth is that the PSP Slim & Lite was not a dramatic revision of the original PSP, either. This only matters to the hardcore segment. Sony does not place much emphasis on the different PSP models or their names, and the box art for the upcoming bundles does not seem to feature any prominent indication of the new model. Dancter (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not the most common name, what is? And please, provide evidence/sources that this other name is more ingrained in human consciousness than the product name itself. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I pointed out earlier, all of the sources listed on this page refer to it as the PSP-3000, which to me seems to be enough to indicate that is its common name. Khalfani Khaldun 22:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That name is only used to make it unambiguous what revision of the PSP is being discussed, not because that's what people will call it in practice. Just as people refer to the PSP-2000 series as "PSP Slim" in articles to make it clear which model is being discussed. The product is still "PlayStation Portable". —Locke Cole • t • c 00:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters why that is its common name, just that it is, right? Khalfani Khaldun 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most sites I've read call it "PSP Slim" (the actual acronym, "PSP", expands to "PlayStation Portable") or "PSP Brite". Note that the "Slim" and "Brite" are merely qualifiers to identify which particular model is being discussed. Similar to the PSP-3000 model number usage. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but what I'm trying to say is that the articles themselves are about the different models, so if they have different common "quantifiers" those should be the names used for the article name, no? Khalfani Khaldun 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this particular page move has nothing to do with the common names principle. Rather, this new page naming seems like overdoing Wikipedia disambiguation schema, against the actual purpose of the naming convention, which is to make the encyclopedia more navigable. Dancter (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably reading primarily gaming blogs. The "PSP Brite" nickname is pretty popular with that segment of the gaming press, but more professional sites like IGN, CVG, or GameSpot don't use it at all. Gaming blogs are also more likely to shorten "PSP Slim & Lite" to "PSP Slim". I think you are being overly dismissive of what you perceive as "merely qualfiers". "PSP Slim & Lite" and "PSP-3000" are the names used by Sony,[1][2][3], are the ones most commonly used when discussing particular models, and are a natural way of disambiguating between them. Dancter (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, owners more often refer to their iPod Photo as simply their iPod, and their Game Boy Advance SP as their Game Boy or Game Boy Advance. I don't see your point. In practice, hardly anyone uses "PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite". You bring up the common names convention as a rationale for this move, but when Khalfani Khaldun quotes from the very page you cited, you respond, "I would not, however, support it being moved to any title reducing 'PlayStation Portable' to 'PSP'," without explaining how that addresses Khalfani Khaldun's point. Moreover, the name is "PSP". Look at the logo, or pretty much any press material or packaging. Unlike other PlayStation consoles, the abbreviated form "PSP" is the official, preferred name for the product.[4] Dancter (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was probably a bad argument to try and make. As for PSP vs. PlayStation Portable, please see WP:NC where it says "Convention: Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. NATO, NASA, laser, radar, and scuba are good examples of acronyms that are commonly thought of as words. On the other hand, abbreviations like assn and UK should not be used, although UK (for United Kingdom) is acceptable for use in disambiguation." The PSP is, of course, not exclusively known by that name (even if PSP may be the more common name between "PlayStation Portable" and "PSP", it is not known "almost exclusively" by that name). The naming conventions are, necessarily, complicated, so please read them thoroughly. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, to me is exceedingly legalistic. The "almost exclusively" standard may not apply to the PSP in general, but in the relevant context for these particular articles, "PSP" is overwhelmingly more common. The terms I am naming are "PSP Slim & Lite" and "PSP-3000". You consider them merely a name with qualifiers, so it would make sense for you to be more accepting of titles such as "PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite" (which also explains the preference of "and" over "&"). Others think it's more appropriate to consider them names in themselves, and take issue with using a title that is not more accurate, more common, or more convenient. Dancter (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"overwhelmingly more common" does not meet the "almost exclusively" threshold IMHO. This is an encyclopedia and these naming conventions have wide spread community support: support enough that I know trying to ignore them on a single article page is a recipe for disaster (after all, what's the point in making guidelines like this as a community if a handful of editors on an article page are going to "veto" it). Besides, if we go by actual reliable sources (which many used in this article are not: forums, blogs and so forth are generally frowned upon here, we favor print media with wide circulation, for example) I think you'll find that "PlayStation Portable" sees far more use in these more reliable circles than those used in blogs/forums/etc. I'm still failing to see how this title is in any way "inaccurate". The thing being discussed is the "PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite". As this is an updated/newer model (with no other distinction in naming) we use the model number as a qualifier ("PSP-3000 series", the model number is actually PSP-3001 I believe in the United States, with the last digit changing depending upon the region). This is in no way inaccurate, and it keeps the common name (per the naming conventions, which means excluding the acronym) as well as the common qualifier (PSP-3000) in the article title. The lead of the article, that is, the opening paragraph/sentence can still make reference to this by other nicknames ("PSP Brite", etc), but the actual name must be something that fits with our naming conventions (and by extension, is simpler for unfamiliar readers to grasp/understand). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "Screen Problem" Section is in Order

The new PSP 3000 model has a terrible problem with distortion on the new screen. Something to do with fast movement causing visible "scan lines" to form on the screen. I don't exactly know how to describe it myself, but the story is just now coming around on the internet. Here's some sources:

Playstation Forums: http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=psp&thread.id=3398529&view=by_date_ascending&page=9

eXophase.com: http://exophase.com/psp/interlacing-artifacts-show-up-in-new-psp-3000-lcds-8360.htm

I'm pretty sure this warrants a "problems" sections on the wikipedia page. I don't really know how to edit in the references because I never cared that much about it, so I figured I'd just put it out there, and hope somebody else takes it upon themselves to edit the information in.

Dr. Ransom 9:33 October 17, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ransom (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find some better sources to establish that this is an issue that extends beyond a few compaints on message boards, perhaps it should be mentioned. Even so, it does not automatically warrant its own section in the article. As it is, there is no mention whatsoever of the general reception of the model, and jumping straight into what may be a limited issue would be to give it undue weight. Dancter (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just a few complaints on the forums, it's over 16 pages of them. Either way, somebody has put in the section on the article that I said was a good idea, and they seem to have references so there you go. Dr. Ransom (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have concerns about the image used to show the pixel structure of the PSP-2000 and PSP-3000 screens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Psp_subpixels.png

As you can see, it appears that the PSP-3000 subpixels go from top-to-bottom, red-green-blue, as oppposed to left-to-right on the PSP-3000. But the PSP-3000 image could be faked by simply taking a picture of the screen rotated 90 degrees, or taking the picture normally, then rotating it later in an image processing program. And the top row of pixels on the sphere is clearly a completely different intensity between the two screens, which leads me to further question if the "top" of the circle on the PSP-3000 screen is actually the left or right *side* of the circle.

Basically, we need more proof that the pixel structure is indeed changed on the PSP-3000 screen. And if we can determine that for sure, then we also have to figure out why it's causing the "scan line" problem. Josh7289 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, what do you mean, "why"? Rotate any other handheld system 90 degrees, and view fast moving images. Same problem occurs.--209.87.194.21 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's been a while since I posted that, so here's my long update. I have bolded the most important parts to make it easier to read.

Since last October, it's become obvious to me that those pictures weren't fake, and the PSP-3000 screen does indeed have a vertical RGB pixel structure, as opposed to the horizontal RGB pixel structure of most other LCD screens.

I still can't explain why the top line of that circle is clearly different on the PSP-2000 screen than on the PSP-3000 screen, though. To be more precise, however, the picture is of the lower portion of the Game icon on the XMB, so perhaps Sony changed the XMB icons between systems, or perhaps the icon glows or something and the photographs were taken at different times during its glow cycle. Can anyone confirm which it is?

Also, I sort of understand where the scanline issue comes from now. It appears to be a problem with the human eye or brain, actually (though I have no confirmation whatsoever of this). We seem to be able to notice dark horizontal lines better than dark vertical lines. So, bear with me here, but for example, on a normal LCD screen with a horizontal, left-to-right RGB pixel layout, if you have a large patch of red color, the green and blue subpixels in that patch will be turned off, and the red subpixels will be turned on. As a result of the horizontal pixel structure, the green and blue subpixels (that are turned off) are stacked on top of each other, resulting in a two-subpixel-wide dark vertical line running through the red patch of color for every pixel.

With the PSP-3000 screen, which has a vertical, top-to-bottom RGB pixel layout, the opposite is true. Using the red patch of color example again, the green and blue subpixels in that patch will be turned off. These turned off subpixels are right next to each other in a horizontal fashion, resulting in two-subpixel-wide dark horizontal lines running through the red patch of color.

It appears to me that the human eye notices these horizontal dark lines more than the vertical ones, so even though these 'scanlines' are present on virtually all LCD displays, they only become apparent to the human eye when they run horizontally rather than vertically (that is, on an LCD screen with a vertical RGB subpixel order rather than on an LCD screen with a horizontal RGB subpixel order). Again, however, I don't know enough about the human eye to say if this is the cause of the 'scanlines' for sure.

Furthermore, to clarify, there are two issues with the PSP-3000 screen: the 'scanlines', and interlacing. I already explained what I think causes the appearance of static 'scanlines' that can be seen when similar colors are close together horizontally, but the interlacing issue is an entirely other beast. My understanding of the interlacing issue is that the PSP-3000 screen only has half of its lines updated every 1/60th of a second, on an even/odd pattern, alternating between updating the even lines one 1/60th of a second, then updating the odd lines on the next 1/60th of a second. In other words, standard CRT-like interlacing. This apparently occurs at all times: during games, videos, while on the XMB, everything.

I am not sure if the interlacing is occurring directly at the screen or internally in the video output, however. That is, I am not sure if only half of the lines are being physically refreshed every 1/60th of a second, or if all the lines are being physically refreshed every 1/60th of a second but the refresh/new frame they receive only has half of its lines actually changed/updated from the previous frame.

Finally, to the person who replied to me, you don't need fast-moving images to test for 'scanlines'. In fact, it is easier to look for them in a controlled environment, for example by making a splotch of pure red pixels in MS Paint or something, then rotating your normal, horizontally aligned subpixel LCD screen 90 degrees (thereby simulating a vertically aligned subpixel structure). Make sure your face is close enough to the screen (as it would be on a portable game system, remember) and suddenly you can see the 'scanlines'. Even though they were there all along, it's easier to see them when they're running horizontally relative to your field of vision rather than vertically. Josh7289 (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some improvements needed

1. We need a picture, it is a terrible article without a picture.

2. We need some more information, it's already been released it should have lots of information.

3. We need to figure out if the psp-3000 is hackable or not, if not we need to add that.

please view this acticle http://pspupdates.qj.net/PSP-3000-hacked-By-Datel-/pg/49/aid/126401 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.147.241 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Estemshorn (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.~~There's no fair use image of the PSP-3000. Sony still copyrights the images of the console found in websites~~. The article has a fair use image now.

2. There are improvments to the "Homebrew" section of the article, just only left with improving the short intro and release summary of the PSP-3000.

3. Your posted article is outdated. Datel was sued by Sony Com. Entertainment (Europe) "for using its code" for the chip inside the "Lite Blue Tool" battery, changed the battery's name to "Power MAX Digital" and deleted the PSP-3000 hacking features. My second answer: Yes. And soon or few months later acccording to users in PSP hacking forums. You should check the PSP-3000 article for new changes.Kyrios320 (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title changed to incorrect name

The name of this article was changed to "PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite (PSP-3000 series)", but the 3000 series is not a Slim an Lite PSP. The title should be changed to a corret title. If you need examples I sugest using the original title, PSP Brite, or something simalar. Miutsu (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look through the exhausting debate on the article name above and post there... The problem with Slim and Lite is that it was moved to this name without discussion and really I haven't seen evidence that says the PSP-3000 is not a Slim and Lite - even though Sony seems to have never referred to this version as such - so it's hard to push for moving the article back. PSP Brite is not an acceptable article name because it is in no way the common name of the product as it is only called such in some forums and in a few select venues. Personally I'm in favor of moving the article to PlayStation Portable (3000 series), but since this is a controversial topic I won't do so without consensus. Khalfani Khaldun 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves don't require discussion unless the move would be knowingly controversial. At the time I initially moved it the page name was entirely unacceptable (it was the model number of the product with no indicator of what the products name was) so pretty much anything was an improvement. As to your proposed name, are you suggesting dropping the "PSP-" from the title? I'm fine with the name it's currently at now ("PlayStation Portable (PSP-3000 series)") as I wasn't entirely sure if Sony was still calling this Slim and Lite or not. But shortening it to simply "3000 series" wouldn't be appropriate IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSP Battery Diffrent on PSP-3000 model?

I read on many forums saying the PSP-3000 uses a 5 volt battery compared to the past 3.5 volt batteries is this true and if so we should put that in there —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'll use a 5 volt battery. The 5 volts is for its AC adaptor/charger. The PSP-3000 still uses a 3.6 volt, 1200 mAh battery like the Slim and Lite or the 1800 mAh battery if you buy one such battery or own PSP-1000. Kyrios320 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 220.255.7.181 vandalized the article

It appears that user 220.255.7.181 has vandalized this article, inserting swear words, false information, changing links, etc.. I am attempting to undo the damage. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merger discussion on psp2000 page

I am discussing whether to merge the 3000 and slim&lite articles into the same article (still seperate from the 1000 article though) as this is a minor upgrade of the console not like the 2000 was to the 1000 and the go is to them. as bloodhound gang said, i'd appreciate your input chocobogamer mine 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better don't. The PSP-3000 article is a bit long to be merged into the PSP Slim and Lite's article and merging them can cause more confusion.

Just keep them seperated and there will no problem except the intro is still short as the rest of it has gone into the article's "System changes" section though. Kyrios320 (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]