Post by: GTac01 on September 28, 2002, 08:56:00 AM
Post by: M3_DeL on September 28, 2002, 11:23:00 AM
Post by: opjose on September 28, 2002, 02:18:00 PM
Normally the output is interlaced, one frame frame for one set of scan lines, and another for the subsequent one.
This "cheats" the tv, so to speak, but also causes horrible artifacting.
It's like having a 240line picture then showing two frames one shifted slightly above the other. When all is said and done, it's still 240 scanlines.
In 480p mode, you get 480 "true" scanlines, so the resolution appears to be doubled.
Post by: GTac01 on September 28, 2002, 03:16:00 PM
Post by: ferrell on September 28, 2002, 07:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (GTac01 @ Sep 28 2002, 09:09 PM) |
| so it looks better or worse? y do people want this? |
It looks worse. MUCH WORSE! This is why people pay thousands of dollars for HD tevevision sets that are capable of displaying progressive scan signals.
Better questions...
What's the search button?
What's Google?
Post by: opjose on September 28, 2002, 08:16:00 PM
| QUOTE (GTac01 @ Sep 28 2002, 09:09 PM) |
| so it looks better or worse? y do people want this? |
Obviously better.
Every see what happens when you add a VGA adaptor to the Dreamcast?
It transforms it! It becomes a much more impressive little device.
We want to do the same thing with the Xbox. The internal electronics are there to do this, the problem is that the VGA adaptors for the Xbox do not do it. (Except for the German and Kasper ones.)
It's a -BIG- deal.
Post by: Malibuman on September 28, 2002, 08:57:00 PM
| QUOTE (GTac01 @ Sep 28 2002, 09:09 PM) |
| so it looks better or worse? y do people want this? |
Really Better. I have a 61" Widescreen HDTV, and once you start playing movies or games on it, you'll never want to go back to the old composite video again.