Level of detail of GBA games on the GC GB Player

[Eduardo]

I noticed that some games are much more detailed than what you can see on the GBA when you play them on the Gameboy Player and a big screen. One of those games is Advance Wars. has anyone else noticed this? I'm guessing it was done on purpose.

[Leo_A]

I've never seen anything on the Game Boy Player that I can't see on a handheld like my SP2. It has no special capabilities that enhance the software like the Super Game Boy (Which allowed SGB enhanced titles to access the SuperNes hardware for such things as improved audio).

I imagine playing on a larger screen is allowing you to notice things that slipped past you on a handheld, especially if you played on the original GBA or sidelit SP.

[izarate]

If you played on a GBA or a SP1 and then put the game on the GBPlayer then yes, you should notice more detail in the picture but that's just because the GBA/SP1 screen was so dim not because the GBPlayer adds detail.

[Dangerboy]

Actually, i believe gunstar heroes gba could detect the GC's component cable and you could play it that way - high def GBA. :D I need to hook that thing up again...

[heybtbm]

Actually, i believe gunstar heroes gba could detect the GC's component cable and you could play it that way - high def GBA. :D I need to hook that thing up again...

You are correct. Most GBA games via the Game Boy Player + Gamecube + component cables are 480p.

[Eduardo]

I had the original GBA and was blown away by Advance Wars. It's actually the only GBA title I own for soe reason. Looking forward to getting more!

[j_factor]

You are correct. Most GBA games via the Game Boy Player + Gamecube + component cables are 480p.

I thought it was all games.

[Enigmus]

I don't use a Game Boy Player (yay for Homebrew Channel) but my friend has had one since they first came out, and he says it acts just like a regular Game Boy Player, just that the only extras are frame borders, hotswapping, screen resizing, sharpness and a timer. I would prefer to run classic Game Boy games through a Super Game Boy (had one at one point, can't figure out where it disappeared to) and leave the GBC and GBA to the Player. That, and the only reason I just use Homebrew is because of savestating and screen resizing.

Also, has anyone here ever had the chance to use the Wide Boy 64 that plays GBC games? I've always wanted to know how it compares to the SGB and GBPlayer.

[retroman]

never payed any mind to it....only that it was bigger..most games showed sprites larger...maybe im a dumbass

[Leo_A]

You are correct. Most GBA games via the Game Boy Player + Gamecube + component cables are 480p.

All GBA games can be outputted in progressive scan with component cables.

[izarate]

I thought it was all games.

Indeed it is.

[The Manimal]

If you played on a GBA or a SP1 and then put the game on the GBPlayer then yes, you should notice more detail in the picture but that's just because the GBA/SP1 screen was so dim not because the GBPlayer adds detail.

I've never thought the SP1 was dim. Any brighter and you are washing things out. :-p


I've seen pics of the DSlite's two brightest backlight options and they look really bad IMO. I assume it is good for using in the sun, however.

[ccovell]

Also, has anyone here ever had the chance to use the Wide Boy 64 that plays GBC games? I've always wanted to know how it compares to the SGB and GBPlayer.

I have the WideBoy 64 and it's basically like the Super GameBoy but with a slight lack of options (no border changing.) But the fact that the screen can be zoomed to full size is a pretty nice feature.

See here: http://www.disgruntleddesigner.com/chrisc/wideboy64.html

I like the GC GBPlayer for the sole fact that it can play GBA games, but why did they have to use an interlaced screen anyway? (The same must be asked of all low-res/arcade ports on modern systems.)

[megasdkirby]

Are these "WideBoy 64" rare?

I would love to own one, thanks to the link provided by ccovell. Looks pretty neat.

Also, I never knew that I could play GBA games on 480p! Too bad the component cables cost an arm and a leg. :(

[BetaWolf47]

I like the GC GBPlayer for the sole fact that it can play GBA games, but why did they have to use an interlaced screen anyway? (The same must be asked of all low-res/arcade ports on modern systems.)
If you're running them on standard definition, how can they NOT be interlaced? I'm curious as to what you're asking.

[Leo_A]

His post doesn't make any sense, but I believe he is talking about the screens of a handheld GBA.

If he's talking about the Game Boy Player, like has already been said a half dozen times in this thread, GBA games support progressive output and can be played in 480p through the use of component cables.

And I really don't understand what the inability of many modern consoles to display a resolution lower then 480i/p has to do with the topic.

[MarioMania]

Super Mario Advance 4 SMB3

one of the game that takes advanage of Component Video

[ccovell]

His post doesn't make any sense, but I believe he is talking about the screens of a handheld GBA.

The only reason my post doesn't make sense is that you don't know enough about the topic, namely: the problem of 2-D games being displayed poorly on modern systems.

While this may or may not seem to be a problem on HDTVs with systems running in progressive mode, on SDTVs, it's a big complaint. Witness:

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/06/column_compilation_catalog_seg_1.php :

There's no lack of video options available: each game can be displayed in an interlaced and scaled mode, in progressive-scan, or pixel-perfect in its native resolution (termed '240p' here). This latter option is something that's missing from nearly every major retro-compilation that's released these days, and the lack of it leaves the vast majority of all those classics looking blurry, shimmery, and limp.

http://www.retrogamer.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21861&start=0 :

I find some of the emulation in these newer compilations pretty dodgy at times, it really spoilt Taito Legends 1/2 I thought, on top of bad emulation the actual graphics are usually terrible, opting to use the native resolution of the console it's on rather than the original hardware so you end up with a horrible, blurry interlaced shitfest.

and

http://namakoteam.com/news.php?id=112 :

Each game has several display options available: interlace (480i), progressive (480p), progressive with scanlines, and a non-interlaced mode. This last mode is the most sought-after of the four for those of us who still use standard-definition televisions, as it presents the games in their original resolution, pixel-perfect, without blur or interlacing, and with the scanlines right where they should be.


So the same thing is true about the SuperGameBoy, WideBoy 64, and GB Player. If you have the SGB and GBPlayer, compare for yourself. The SGB and WB64 output non-interlaced video, as they should, while the GBPlayer outputs interlaced (on my SDTV; your HDTV might give you a better experience) video. Interlaced or 480p often means flicker and/or blurring due to interpolation that can't be turned off. For GameBoy (Advance) games that run at a very low vertical resolution (144/160 lines), there's no need to fit it into 480 lines when 240 would do (and look better too.) I prefer to play GB(C) games on my SGB or WB64 because of the distracting interlace of the GB Player.


And I really don't understand what the inability of many modern consoles to display a resolution lower then 480i/p has to do with the topic.

Well, my comment was in parentheses after all, wasn't it?


If you're running them on standard definition, how can they NOT be interlaced? I'm curious as to what you're asking.

Anyway, answered above. Non-interlaced video is possible on almost any video game system (GC included (http://hitmen.c02.at/files/yagcd/yagcd/chap5.html).) I can't speak for all the latest systems, but their being in 480i/p is not (I assume) due to an inability to do non-interlaced, but a choice (for sharper 3-D.)

[Ed Oscuro]

This reminds me of what my dad once said about hooking a Xbox 360 to a large standard def. TV: "Wouldn't there be a waste of detail?" But there the ability to see things better (due to the size increase) over a smaller TV is the reason - but but this detail isn't a "different level," it's just helping out your apparently poor eyesight (or perhaps the original GBA's visibility is really that bad).

Now I'm scared and confused, and also confused and scared. Thank goodness I have both ways of playing available (four GB-type systems to choose from, including the DS Lite which has a decent backlit screen, and the Hori classic controller, though yet to be taken out of its package).

My belief was that the GB Player simply takes the usual output and displays it on a television screen or other appropriate monitor, with the benefit of horrendous borders as the GBA's resolution would not quite scale up to fill the borders of a 480 line image while simultaneously keeping the correct pixel aspect ratio - square pixels in this case, and as the GameCube / GB Player match also display square pixels, it seems a good match. This is similar to the Super Game Boy and the SNES but that is a more complicated situation due to the different pixel aspect ratios (shape of the pixels) of the SNES and the Game Boy, and the different aspect ratios of the Game Boy itself (almost square) and the SNES (4:3).

My confusion (or maybe not) is due to the people here saying that there is "more detail" on the GBA. Whence has this extra detail come from?

It doesn't come from mapping one pixel of the GBA resolution to two pixels of the GameCube resolution, since that's simply a kind of upscaling (technically, this isn't upscaling since the original image from the GB Player is at that resolution, but it's like you scaled a GBA image up, sort of).

It doesn't come from higher detail images hidden on the GBA cartridge because they're all designed for the tiny resolution of the GBA, and the output you get is not 480p worth of detail.

Assuming I'm correct that each pixel is doubled in size, there are now (in the GB Player's GBA window) four pixels covering where one would be on the GBA.

[j_factor]

The only reason my post doesn't make sense is that you don't know enough about the topic, namely: the problem of 2-D games being displayed poorly on modern systems.

While this may or may not seem to be a problem on HDTVs with systems running in progressive mode, on SDTVs, it's a big complaint. Witness:

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/06/column_compilation_catalog_seg_1.php :


http://www.retrogamer.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21861&start=0 :


and

http://namakoteam.com/news.php?id=112 :



So the same thing is true about the SuperGameBoy, WideBoy 64, and GB Player. If you have the SGB and GBPlayer, compare for yourself. The SGB and WB64 output non-interlaced video, as they should, while the GBPlayer outputs interlaced (on my SDTV; your HDTV might give you a better experience) video. Interlaced or 480p often means flicker and/or blurring due to interpolation that can't be turned off. For GameBoy (Advance) games that run at a very low vertical resolution (144/160 lines), there's no need to fit it into 480 lines when 240 would do (and look better too.) I prefer to play GB(C) games on my SGB or WB64 because of the distracting interlace of the GB Player.



Well, my comment was in parentheses after all, wasn't it?



Anyway, answered above. Non-interlaced video is possible on almost any video game system (GC included (http://hitmen.c02.at/files/yagcd/yagcd/chap5.html).) I can't speak for all the latest systems, but their being in 480i/p is not (I assume) due to an inability to do non-interlaced, but a choice (for sharper 3-D.)

I could be wrong, but I thought the GBA itself was interlaced to begin with. So to make it non-interlaced, wouldn't you have to combine the fields, making it only refresh at 30 frames per second?

[ccovell]

Yes, the screen of the GBA is interlaced, which is why the GB Player has those frame blending settings. The GBC also happened to have an interlaced screen, meaning the full image does take 1/30 of a second to be built.

[tomaitheous]

I could be wrong, but I thought the GBA itself was interlaced to begin with. So to make it non-interlaced, wouldn't you have to combine the fields, making it only refresh at 30 frames per second?

The display is, but the video render-er internally is not. It's a bit confusing. There's all sorts of half updating methods for old (and even new) LCDs and such. It's a little bit different than a 'field' on NTSC analog display even if the corresponding method is resembles even/odd scanlines updates (though, I do know what you're getting at). But I don't doubt that some/most GBA games don't take this into account (not all of them do, because when I first got my original GBA at launch - I broke the seal to increase the brightness pot, which drastically increased the interlaced update artifacts for my games).

[Leo_A]

The only reason my post doesn't make sense is that you don't know enough about the topic, namely: the problem of 2-D games being displayed poorly on modern systems.

First of all, your post just wasn't very clear in the first place. And secondly, 2d or 3d has nothing to do with the subject of resolution



While this may or may not seem to be a problem on HDTVs with systems running in progressive mode, on SDTVs, it's a big complaint. Witness:

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/06/column_compilation_catalog_seg_1.php :


http://www.retrogamer.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21861&start=0 :


and

http://namakoteam.com/news.php?id=112 :


All of those are low resolution content running on consoles that don't support it due to the standards MS and Sony have in place that mandate at least a 480i resolution on the PS2 and Xbox. It has absolutely nothing to do with GBA games, the Game Boy Player, or the GameCube or Wii (Both of which are fully capable of outputting resolutions lower then 480i/p and regularly do with emulators). So with something like the Virtual Console's NES emulator, you don't get the flickering you'd expect when 240p content is instead outputting at 480i since it's outputting the correct 240p signal.



So the same thing is true about the SuperGameBoy, WideBoy 64, and GB Player. If you have the SGB and GBPlayer, compare for yourself. The SGB and WB64 output non-interlaced video, as they should, while the GBPlayer outputs interlaced (on my SDTV; your HDTV might give you a better experience) video.

The term is progressive, no one calls it noninterlaced. And the Game Boy Player is fully capable of outputting a 480p progressive image through the use of component cables to any ED/HD television that has component inputs.

You do realize that a standard definition television is interlaced by nature? Something like a 240p signal is still going to be interlaced on your television (You'll see dark lines between every two drawn lines).

Are you complaining that the Game Boy Player upscales everything to 480i (Or 480p when using component cables to a 480p capable television)? Then why does something like a Game Boy or Game Boy Color game not take advantage of the full height of the television between the borders when using the Game Boy Player? It has to be because it's running at 160x144 and I see nothing that suggest it isn't outputting GBA titles in a 240x160 resolution within the GBP's border

Are you complaining that it should be sending out a 144p or 160p signal and isn't? I've seen none of the telltale signs on the Game Boy Player of content being outputted at a different resolution like I do when playing emulators like Taito Legends on my PS2 with 240p content being sent out at 480i instead.

[tomaitheous]

The term is progressive, no one calls it noninterlaced. And the Game Boy Player is fully capable of outputting a 480p progressive image through the use of component cables to any ED/HD television that has component inputs.


Bullshit. Many people call it non-interlaced. You know, the opposite of interlaced. The term has been used for decades and in official manuals too. And attempting to discredit Chris in such a lame fashion, is... well... pretty lame.



You do realize that a standard definition television is interlaced by nature? Something like a 240p signal is still going to be interlaced on your television (You'll see dark lines between every two drawn lines).

Do you realize who the fuck you're responding to? Chris having coded quite a bit of demos old home consoles, including a special interlaced mode one for PC-Engine (that otherwise doesn't exist as a hardware option). Foot, mouth, donkey ears. ;)

And you're wrong. 240p signal is NOT interlaced. You need to go back brush up on your understanding of NTSC 480i VS 240p.

[Leo_A]

Bullshit. Many people call it non-interlaced. You know, the opposite of interlaced. The term has been used for decades and in official manuals too. And attempting to discredit Chris in such a lame fashion, is... well... pretty lame.

99% of the time, it's called progressive.


Do you realize who the fuck you're responding to? Chris having coded quite a bit of demos old home consoles, including a special interlaced mode one for PC-Engine (that otherwise doesn't exist as a hardware option). Foot, mouth, donkey ears. ;)

I don't care about his background nor am I trying to discredit him. I pointed things out and asked some questions trying to understand what he was trying to get across since it still isn't completely clear. I wouldn't be surprised if he was right with whatever it is.


And you're wrong. 240p signal is NOT interlaced. You need to go back brush up on your understanding of NTSC 480i VS 240p.

I never said a 240p signal was interlaced. But display it on a standard definition television that is interlaced by nature and your going to find what I stated is correct, for every two drawn lines you'll have a dark line before two more drawn lines. I shouldn't of said it's still going to be interlaced (Because it isn't), but it's a minor mistake at best.

[theclaw]

Are you complaining that it should be sending out a 144p or 160p signal and isn't? I've seen none of the telltale signs on the Game Boy Player of content being outputted at a different resolution like I do when playing emulators like Taito Legends on my PS2 with 240p content being sent out at 480i instead.

Isn't most HDTVs not supporting 240p the reason for that? I get a blank screen when playing PS1 games, Mega Man X Collection (some parts of it show up as the resolution switches at times), Disgaea, or other such titles, using component on PS2.

[ccovell]

The term is progressive, no one calls it noninterlaced.

"Progressive" and "240p" are neologisms that came into vogue only with the HD era. Before that, it was "interlaced", "non[-]interlaced", etc. for 60+ years. And now perfectly fine words with a good pedigree are being retconned out of existence. And yeah, I'll keep calling Mumbai "Bombay" and everyone will still know what city I'm talking about.

I know it's a crude measuring method but: progressive scan (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22progressive+scan%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=14582b412f22cd49) vs noninterlaced (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Rum&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=noninterlaced&aq=f&aqi=g-c3g-sx3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) nets you 2.5 million hits vs 1.9 million hits, a ratio of 1.3:1. Not a landslide by any means.

A few of those websites I linked to before use words like "interlaced" and "noninterlaced". And a few of those are actual journalists, too.


You do realize that a standard definition television is interlaced by nature? Something like a 240p signal is still going to be interlaced on your television (You'll see dark lines between every two drawn lines).

True, the NTSC standard calls for interlaced broadcasts, but as far as whether an image is interlaced or not is controlled by the video source (in this case the game system.) While maintaining within specs, including 60(ish)Hz refresh rate and 15Khz horizontal scan rate, game systems can control where their first scanlines hit. And having the scanlines start in the same position on each frame creates noninterlaced video. Having them offset creates interlaced video. TVs also can tell the difference between these. Test it for yourself. Turn on your SDTV's on-screen display when running an NES or Genesis on it, for example. Then turn on the OSD when running a PS2 (not the Gunstar Heroes compilation...). You'll see that the OSD is also either non-interlaced or interlaced.


All of those are low resolution content running on consoles that don't support it due to the standards MS and Sony have in place that mandate at least a 480i resolution on the PS2 and Xbox.

I'll take your word for it, though the existence of the Sega Ages compilations for the PS2 (http://namakoteam.com/news.php?id=112) seem to contradict it.


Are you complaining that the Game Boy Player upscales everything to 480i
Yes, that's basically it. And the SGB and WB64 didn't. And for those of us poor folks with old CRT TVs, the flickering from the GameCube is a bit of a distraction that could have been avoided.

But again, Nintendo never were ones to provide lots of configurability in their games/systems.

[Leo_A]

"All of those are low resolution content running on consoles that don't support it due to the standards MS and Sony have in place that mandate at least a 480i resolution on the PS2 and Xbox."

Don't take my word for it, I just assumed this since I was unaware of anything on the PS2 and Xbox that is presented in low definition, despite the hardware of course being capable of it.

My assumption still may be correct since Sony has loosened their once rather strict standards for PS2 development over the past 3-4 years (Wikipedia says it was released in early 2006).

[BetaWolf47]

So the same thing is true about the SuperGameBoy, WideBoy 64, and GB Player. If you have the SGB and GBPlayer, compare for yourself. The SGB and WB64 output non-interlaced video, as they should, while the GBPlayer outputs interlaced (on my SDTV; your HDTV might give you a better experience) video. Interlaced or 480p often means flicker and/or blurring due to interpolation that can't be turned off. For GameBoy (Advance) games that run at a very low vertical resolution (144/160 lines), there's no need to fit it into 480 lines when 240 would do (and look better too.) I prefer to play GB(C) games on my SGB or WB64 because of the distracting interlace of the GB Player.
Dude, it's not even possible for SNES or N64 to send out non-interlaced signals. Unless you're using component video, HDMI, VGA, or DVI, all of your video is going to be 240i or 480i. The idea that Taito, Capcom, and other arcade companies are intentionally choosing for their games to be outputted in an inferior format is ridiculous.

<EDIT> Am I talking out of my rear-end here? Composite cables being able to output anything besides an interlaced signal is new to me.


"Progressive" and "240p" are neologisms that came into vogue only with the HD era.
That's not true either. "Progressive" has been used well before. Look at the back of some 2001-2002 Gamecube cases if you don't believe me.

[tomaitheous]

Dude, it's not even possible for SNES or N64 to send out non-interlaced signals. Unless you're using component video, HDMI, VGA, or DVI, all of your video is going to be 240i or 480i. The idea that Taito, Capcom, and other arcade companies are intentionally choosing for their games to be outputted in an inferior format is ridiculous.

<EDIT> Am I talking out of my rear-end here? Composite cables being able to output anything besides an interlaced signal is new to me.


Hello. 240p, not 240i. That's progressive on composite. Unless you treat two fields as a frame in 480i, then you have 480p30 (vs 480i60 or 240p60).

[Leo_A]

Composite cables can output a low resolution progressive signal, such as 240p, just fine. In fact 240p is a common resolution for many classic games. They just don't have the bandwidth to output a 480p signal. I've never heard of 240i.

And I think he's going back further then 2000 with the terminology of noninterlaced. Certainly progressive scan is the terminology that has been popular over the past 15 years since HDTV's started their slow growth in the late 90s.


Isn't most HDTVs not supporting 240p the reason for that? I get a blank screen when playing PS1 games, Mega Man X Collection (some parts of it show up as the resolution switches at times), Disgaea, or other such titles, using component on PS2.

No, I think you'll find that until this current generation, very little attention was paid by developers and console manufacturers to HDTV's and the limited HD capabilities that existed weren't much more then a afterthought. They were certainly not avoiding something because of HDTV's.

Any HDTV supports 240p, it's just that some designers don't ever expect a low resolution signal through the component inputs and the televisions don't support it as a result. That's why for example some owners of Ico on the PS2 can't play it on their HDTV's through component (Ico runs in 240p) and have to hook up their console via composite or s-video to get a picture since they planned and were prepared for lower resolutions to be sent through those inputs.

And come to think of it, Ico is another example that disproves Sony not allowing low resolution PS2 software.

[theclaw]

Don't take my word for it, I just assumed this since I was unaware of anything on the PS2 and Xbox that is presented in low definition, despite the hardware of course being capable of it.

My assumption still may be correct since Sony has loosened their once rather strict standards for PS2 development over the past 3-4 years (Wikipedia says it was released in early 2006).

That doesn't seem right. Disgaea was released in 2003. :wink 2:

[ccovell]

Dude, it's not even possible for SNES or N64 to send out non-interlaced signals. Unless you're using component video, HDMI, VGA, or DVI, all of your video is going to be 240i or 480i. The idea that Taito, Capcom, and other arcade companies are intentionally choosing for their games to be outputted in an inferior format is ridiculous.

Am I talking out of my rear-end here? Composite cables being able to output anything besides an interlaced signal is new to me.

Sorry, you are doing some backside-talkin' here, because most '80s/'90s systems had almost no choice but to stay in non-interlaced mode, or at least to use interlacing sparingly. It is possible for video signals to be non-interlaced and as I said above, you can test it for yourself.

A deeper example: Put in most any SNES game (using composite/S-Video/whatever) and play on your CRT TV with the on-screen display. You'll likely see the OSD has black scanlines between active lines and the OSD is relatively stable. Then put in a specific game like Syvalion or RPM Racing. Both of these enable the SNES' interlaced mode, which is readily apparent by the increased flicker on-screen. Again, turn on the OSD. You'll notice the OSD has almost no visible black lines between scanlines since the OSD has put itself into interlaced mode too. You'll probably also notice more flicker on the OSD as well. Every tube TV has to support interlaced and non-interlaced signals, or else they're just deficient, really.

A third test anyone can do is with the SFC game "Maka Maka", which enables an interesting 3rd mode of the SFC/SNES wherein graphics are still low-res, but interlacing is on. What will be visible is some interlace flicker, but every pair of odd and even scanline is identical. (This is known to some as a "linedoubled mode".)

Star Soldier on the N64. Title Screen? Hires Interlaced. In-game? Non-interlaced. Again, test it out if you don't believe me.


That's not true either. "Progressive" has been used well before. Look at the back of some 2001-2002 Gamecube cases if you don't believe me.

The phrases "came into vogue" and "be used before" can coexist, since they don't mean the same thing. What I really meant by the "HD era" was the age when TVs started accepting component/D-Terminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Terminal) connections, which was the late '90s. And yeah, that coincides with the era when people stopped understanding how analogue video signals worked, thanks to always-on interlacing and digital-analogue conversion headaches, etc.

[Iron Draggon]

I just wanna know why Pokemon Pinball has a GameBoy Player splash screen at startup. Does it do anything different when you play it through the player?

[FireStar]

Yep, for most games it just means it supports rumble, but Mario Vs. DK also had a game boy player screen setting, and a few games might have had some optimizations for progressive scan(but I doubt it)

[Leo_A]

Super Mario Bros. 3 also has GBP enhancements and a GBP splash screen.

Supposedly the controller rumbles, although I couldn't get it working for me for some reason.

[BetaWolf47]

Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga also had rumble. It was used with an "itemfinder" kind of thing.

[Ed Oscuro]

This has been pretty interesting reading. I had no idea the GBA was interlaced. I don't think it has any effect on visuals on a handheld (take high-contrast graphics, such as the stained glass windows in the high part of Castlevania: Circle of the Moon's map; these blur quite badly when moving left and right or up and down; with interlacing I'd expect more to show when moving up and down) but it's interesting to know that's how the screen is built. I'll have to check out Mario vs. DK on the GBP as well.