By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 20 June 2009
Edit Thread
hsrob said:
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).

I'm not quite sure why you are getting so worked up about this but i have to agree with Jake here. Resolution refers to the total number of pixels in the scene, whereas the i and p designations merely provide additional information about the display standard. By your argument a 576p DVD (PAL standard) would provide better image quality than a Blu Ray displayed on a slightly older HDTV (1080i), which is just not the case. Progressive scan display provides a more stable, cleaner and flicker free image when compared with an interlaced display of comparable resolution but in the end the difference isn't night and day and it isn't twice as good because they are the same resolution and progressive scan does not allow you to resolve any additional detail from the source material.

The term EDTV is of limited usefullness anyway because it is only used to describe 480p and 576p and i can assure you they are far closer in fidelity to SD than HD (720p, 1080i/p) having viewed numerous sources of all standards in the last 6-7 years on a TV that does not scale and displays all of the resolutions we have been discussing natively.

In the end the Wii supports 480p which is great because it's definitely better than 480i and that's good enough for me.

Typically, with 480i you get 704 pixels displayed across 480 lines interlaced which translates to 10,137,600 pixels per second; with 480p you get the full 720pixels displayed across 480 lines progressively which translates to 20,736,000 pixels per second. The reason the change is not as dramatic as other changes in resolution is (primarily) the reason why they decided to broadcast interlaced video; as long as you're looking at a still image there is no visual difference (or lower quality) by displaying interlaced video, but when a line of pixels is switching from frame to frame you will see a noticeable difference in quality.