Page 3 of 3
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:10 pm
by Bregalad
blargg wrote:Then why don't the NES games on Wii have NTSC artifacts as a NES does? Answer: they didn't want them to be exactly the same as the NES.
The true answers is : They didn't know how to do it being not as good as Blargg.
Anyways, I would take the low color bandwidth of NTSC over the flickeryness of a 50Hz set anyway.
As if we european had choose...
Funily, most recent games with interlacing doesn't look all that bad on a old interlaced TV however pre-rendered graphics looks horrible while scrolling verically.
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:15 pm
by tepples
Bregalad wrote:blargg wrote:Anyways, I would take the low color bandwidth of NTSC over the flickeryness of a 50Hz set anyway.
As if we european had choose...
You do have a choice. As I understand it, a lot of CRT TV sets for 50 Hz markets can do 100 Hz by storing the fields in a frame buffer. LCDs don't flicker when refreshed, and DLPs effectively run at a few kilohertz. The Wii Remote's infrared-sensing design compensates for any problem that these sets have with light guns.
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:22 pm
by Bregalad
At least my (100% analog) TV only supports 50Hz (at least I can just tell the PAL NES was designed to run with it as they are about the same age).
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:00 pm
by atari2600a
NTSC is great for racing games, or anything that requires a decent framerate. Now I haven't seen a real PAL CRT in about 5 years (when I was about 12), but I've torrented a decent amount of BBC EDTV programming to know what the flicker of 50Hz looks like. It's only noticeable when there's serious movement. I'd be more than happy to sacrifice ten fields for the crispness of PAL for something not as complex as Grand Trismo or something...