Sri Lumpa said:
You are wrong in the first sentence and right in the second. An emulator can render at a higher resolution than the target console (if the hardware it runs on is powerful enough) but it would still need to use the assets on the disc. Think of it that way, an emulator could render a NES game in 1080p VERY EASILY but it wouldn't make the sprites HD, for this you would need to replace the sprites (like they did in the super street fighter 2 HD on xbox live and PSN). If they only upscaled they would render in 480p and take that image and stretch it to fit 1080p. Rendering directly in 1080p is not gonna make it as good as a HD game but still better than upscaled (as less jaggies). To everyone else: don't forget that the PS3's PPC core is in-order processing whereas the Wii's core is out-of-order processing so a straight MHz to MHz comparison is useless as simply downclocking the PS3's PPC core to the Wii's core speed would result in it being slower than the Wii's core. Also it might be easier to emulate the Wii on the 360 as it has ATI graphics, like the Wii. I say might as that depends on whether the 360's GPU retains enough of ArtX's stuff to make it more similar to the Wii's GPU than the PS3's GPU. |
No.
The rendering is managed by the game code (that's why ps3 or xbox360 games have different rendering resolution), not the (WIii/ps3/xbox360/pc...) OS or hardware, so the emulator can only upscale and add filters to the upscaled image (rendered in native resolution, that is 480p). You can add AA, because that's a post processing operation, but you can't change the rendering resolution.
