It can be tough to notice I admit. Especially in something like a menu.
I actually use the Wii on a 16:10 computer monitor that has component inputs, and I honestly don't notice a difference of using a slightly different aspect ratio (Sadly, since the signal is 4:3 from the Wii that the monitor has to then stretch to fill the screen, there's no way to get a 16:9 AR out of it on my 16:10 monitor).
Last edited by Leo_A; 09-01-2011 at 04:58 PM.
720x480 is still essentially 4:3, just with non-square pixels. It's usually used by 4:3 systems.Originally Posted by j_factor
My computer outputs 720x480 to my 4:3 television and my video driver won't let me change it to 640x480, so I have to deal with a vertically stretched image.
I don't know why non-square pixels were ever allowed into video standards, but it was a serious mistake.
None. From what I see, 480i barely has any difference than 480p. Same goes for 1080i and 1080p. Hell, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Unless your sitting a foot away from your TV, the difference is minuscule.
When it comes to TV resolutions, numbers are just numbers, and most people just use them to brag to others about how they have the latest technology and how they are better than everyone else because of it. The difference between 480p and 720p is worth it - it's a huge change. The difference between 720p and 1080p is barely anything visible to the human eye, so it's a waste to pay extra for something that you're barely going to notice. The difference between 480i and 480p is barely visible so unless he got the cables for 99 cents or a gift, I would say it was probably a waste of money.
The answer has been stated here. The Wii does not output hi def and while some games do output at 16x9, the Wii menu does not. Golden rule about Nintendo - they can have some of the best games on the market, but as far as technology goes, they are always a generation behind the others.
What kind of video driver do you have that won't allow you to change your scaling settings???
Selling gaming accessories. Click
Don't listen to him, the component cables are cheap and increase the image quality significantly, even at 480i. You'll get a much nicer looking image by not having the signals mixed together, reduced color bleeding, reduced dot crawl, more vibrant and accurate colors, etc. You can notice the quality difference even on a Atari 2600.
And if you're playing on a HDTV, regardless of any differences between 480i and 480p, it's likely that your Wii will do a much better job outputting a progressive image than your tv's scaler chip would do at deinterlacing the signal as it does it's job to upscale the image to the tv's native resolution. Will likely improve your image quality and reduce input lag since it's one less processing step your television has to do to the image before displaying it.
Nothing NES and below benefits from anything above composite. The video hardware just doesn't do anything better, internally. SMS was the first console with RGB video, and thus it benefits from SCART, component, or s-video.
Sorry, but that's simply untrue. S-video and Component modifications for classic consoles are possible, with component modifications being especially common on Colecovisions. I suggest you spend some time looking around at AtariAge where there's much discussion on the video mods for all the popular pre NES consoles.
My classic consoles all have improved picture quality with s-video or component, over composite.
I don't see the point of using component over rgb.
I know little about the Colecovision, but the NES video chip only does composite video. There is no chroma/luma or red/green/blue separation in the hardware. If you mod it for s-video or component, you're only separating a composite signal after the fact. You may get a slightly clearer signal out of component cables, but composite doesn't in any way degrade the picture. Genesis and SNES use RGB video. When you play them in composite, you're significantly downgrading the video; S-video is less of a loss, and component is practically no loss.
On this side of the pond, most of us have TVs with component inputs, but few of us have anything that can accept an RGB signal. SCART is extremely rare. RGB monitors were common in the Amiga days, and multisync monitors aren't unheard-of, but that's not an easy road to take.
Last edited by j_factor; 11-07-2009 at 10:25 PM.
That's just the NES, it doesn't apply to earlier consoles. And even then, the NES can be modified past composite video.
Incidentally, there are even VGA and HDMI modifications in the works for several pre crash consoles due to HDTV's becoming more common.
Modern televisions tend to perform better with higher end inputs than plain old composite, due to the focus modern displays put on HD material over doing a decent job with standard definition. I think the Colecovision one even implements a scaler into the design to upscale it before reaching the display if I'm remembering correctly.
Sounds like overkill now, but in a few years I wouldn't be surprised to see such designs become more commonplace in video modifications for classic consoles in order to try to improve the experience when playing on a modern television.
Last edited by Leo_A; 05-13-2014 at 02:59 AM.
It's actually getting a lot better. A lot of LCD TVs are getting a VGA input... and VGA carries an RGB signal. Also many home theater projectors have inputs that can switch between component and RGB via the component inputs.
psst that's what they started with
What do you mean? Aside from a few oddball arcade and early PC resolutions, most video broadcasts and display standards use resolutions that are the same aspect as the physical screen, and therefore use square pixels. Or are you just referring to widescreen modes using conventional signals?
I don't understand how component is any loss whatsoever. Doesn't it do the same thing just through a different method? Instead of carrying Red, Green, and Blue separately, it carries Red, Blue, and Luma separately and then lets the math take over and make everything else Green. What's being lost?
I've never seen a side by side comparison. I'd wonder what kind of results a double blind experiment would see.
This post doesn't make any sense, so I'm doing the next best thing to deleting it...
Last edited by Leo_A; 11-04-2015 at 08:55 PM.
I don't know. I've just been told it's a slight loss. Although I've never done a real side-by-side comparison myself, from what I can gather, it looks just as good to me. I may have been misinformed. Or maybe it's just that most RGB systems can't normally do component, so it requires transcoding, and the process of transcoding is what causes a slight loss. *shrug*
People can see contrast and brightness better than they can discern color. Component having an entire channel devoted to luminance theoretically makes the image more accurate to the human eye than RGB. RGB has more accurate color, but the contrast and brightness are the byproduct of the three color signals, which could potentially be slightly out of phase with one another and blur monochrome detail.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote