High Voltage - we're proving that the Wii isn't underpowered

[jake_the_fake1]

thetonestarr said:

How 'bout you quit talking out of your ass and read the facts? I even linked them for you, so it's not like you don't have it easily accessable.

By the very basis of interlace vs progressive scan, all progressive scan resolutions are visually twice as good as their interlaced counterparts.

They are not considered the same resolution. They do NOT have the same "base resolution". They have the same initial image, but the resolution itself is VERY different. If they were the same, all TVs capable of displaying a 480i picture would be capable of displaying a 480p image. Pure pixel-count isn't the only part of resolution.

And, actually, as I read more, I've learned that 480p usually has 80 more horizontal pixels (720x480 as opposed to 640x480. NTSC vs VGA resolutions).

 

The end result, which is what's seen on screen, is infact that same resolution 480i/p, like I said the only difference is how there encoded depending if the content is going to be on DVD in which case it'll be progressive or free to air tv which will be interlaced, now all TV's support both interlaced and progressive signals, however older TV's in general didn't support progressive because the eleteconics them selvs were not designed for progressive signals, which is why back in the day there were warnings telling the user that a tv can be damaged if one choose the progressive option but their tv didn't support it.

BTW there are pixels which are not seen as they fall with in the overscan, most modern tvs have an option to turn over scan off, but the olders don't.