Nintendo missing the resolution mark again.

#31SolisPosted 10/4/2012 9:33:10 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
SgtBass8705 posted...
RetroFanGirl posted...
I consider Gamecube with composite cables on an hdtv passable, this really doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Really? because the Wii and Gamecube (I still have both) kind of annoy me on the HDTV I've actually setup an SDTV on a island in my guest room just to avoid how the look when set to wide screen.


Are you using the right cables?
It may be that your TV is just garbage. But, 480p on a 1080p screen really isn't that bad. Though, not that many GameCube games actually do 480p...


When using widescreen especially, Gamecube and Wii games can have a rather poor look to them on a higher quality display because it's just anamorphic widescreen. They stretch a 640x480 resolution image across the full size of the display, which can definitely look poor.


DarkZV2Beta posted...
For pro scan, yes. 480p is another matter. Progressive scan means it supports non-interlaced output, but the internal resolution isn't necessarily 720x480 or 640x480 or even 480x480.
480p is pretty much reserved for the few games that weren't visually impressive, such as ports from weaker hardware, and the occasional gem.(Metroid Prime did 480p I think? Not completely sure.)

480p wasn't too hard to support since most games internally rendered at 640x480 anyway (at least, on the Gamecube). I'm not entirely sure how it works in console circuitry, but I'm guessing that the main difference would be that the output framebuffer would need to store a full 640x480 image instead of separately sending 2 640x240 fields sequentially. If someone knows for sure how it worked though, I'd like to hear it.

Ironically, many PS2 games that ran at resolutions below 640x480 actually supported 480p as well, some could even be forced to output at 480p if they didn't originally. I'm guessing the requirements for supporting 480p can't be too extreme if games had enough resources left over to run at it even when they weren't designed to.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#32DarkZV2BetaPosted 10/4/2012 9:57:00 PM
Solis posted...
480p wasn't too hard to support since most games internally rendered at 640x480 anyway (at least, on the Gamecube). I'm not entirely sure how it works in console circuitry, but I'm guessing that the main difference would be that the output framebuffer would need to store a full 640x480 image instead of separately sending 2 640x240 fields sequentially. If someone knows for sure how it worked though, I'd like to hear it.

Ironically, many PS2 games that ran at resolutions below 640x480 actually supported 480p as well, some could even be forced to output at 480p if they didn't originally. I'm guessing the requirements for supporting 480p can't be too extreme if games had enough resources left over to run at it even when they weren't designed to.


That's just it, though; the internal framebuffer wasn't actually 640x480 in a lot of cases. Just progressive scan, instead of interlaced.
You can see the difference really clearly when comparing something "pro scan" with something actually 480p.
---
Also, lolz@SATA drives. You see, they make these things called "heat," which kills consoles.
-darkjedilink
#33ChipChippersonPosted 10/4/2012 9:59:09 PM
MetroidJunkie posted...
So Sony, once again, pushes a format that people don't really want but that Sony will no doubt convince them they want. Reminds me of Bluray. =)


And 3D.
---
"I don't spend my time posting Nintendo hate topics while letting my 360 and PS3 controllers rumble in my lap."-blazingsonic
#34knightimexPosted 10/4/2012 10:18:26 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
lionheart5656 posted...
The first game that comes out in 4k resolution will bankrupt that developer.


Didn't realize that Quake bankrupted ID software.



eh.... what?
---
i7 2600k 3.4ghz, 12gb 1,333 mhz ram, 1.5tb HDD, EVGA GeForce GTX 690 4096Mb, Sound Blaster Fatal1ty, 850 psu
#35DarkZV2BetaPosted 10/4/2012 10:20:03 PM
knightimex posted...
eh.... what?


Oh look, knightimex doesn't know any better. Imagine that.

Quake can run in 3840x2160.
---
Also, lolz@SATA drives. You see, they make these things called "heat," which kills consoles.
-darkjedilink
#36knightimexPosted 10/4/2012 10:23:03 PM
this thread reminds me of the good old days when we talked about how 1024x786 resolution looked AMAZING!
---
i7 2600k 3.4ghz, 12gb 1,333 mhz ram, 1.5tb HDD, EVGA GeForce GTX 690 4096Mb, Sound Blaster Fatal1ty, 850 psu
#37knightimexPosted 10/4/2012 10:25:21 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
knightimex posted...
eh.... what?


Oh look, knightimex doesn't know any better. Imagine that.

Quake can run in 3840x2160.


This isn't shocking in the slightest as most games that detect resolution do this anyways.
>_>
---
i7 2600k 3.4ghz, 12gb 1,333 mhz ram, 1.5tb HDD, EVGA GeForce GTX 690 4096Mb, Sound Blaster Fatal1ty, 850 psu
#38DarkZV2BetaPosted 10/4/2012 10:31:07 PM
And quake didn't bankrupt ID software.
---
Also, lolz@SATA drives. You see, they make these things called "heat," which kills consoles.
-darkjedilink
#39Hawker44Posted 10/4/2012 10:37:19 PM
I still can't tell the difference from HD & non HD, in fact, 9 times out of 10 I say non HD looks better, so I really don't care.
#40LesserAngelPosted 10/4/2012 10:41:02 PM
Unless they can get 4k tvs to about $250 for a 24", I can't see it catching on. On that note, on a screen that size, would 4k even be a noticeable difference from 1080?