Wii and 16:9 ratio...looks exactly the same to me. Why

[Leo_A]

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.

[j_factor]

Originally Posted by Leo_Ames

You can notice the quality difference even on a Atari 2600.

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.

[Leo_A]

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.

[kedawa]

I don't see the point of using component over rgb.

[j_factor]

Originally Posted by Leo_Ames

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 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.

Originally Posted by kedawa

I don't see the point of using component over rgb.

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.

[Leo_A]

That's just the NES, it doesn't apply to earlier consoles.

Incidently, there are even VGA and HDMI modifications in the works for several pre crash consoles due to HDTV's become 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 impliments 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.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Originally Posted by j_factor

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.

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.

[Ed Oscuro]

Originally Posted by kedawa

I don't know why non-square pixels were ever allowed into video standards, but it was a serious mistake.

psst that's what they started with

[kedawa]

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?

[TonyTheTiger]

Originally Posted by j_factor

and component is practically no loss.

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.

[Leo_A]

Originally Posted by kedawa

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?

The way I interpreted it was that he was stating that that was how we initially had widescreen video at home, in response to rbudrick criticizing how widescreen was achieved with standard and extended definition because of the superiority of how it's achieved with HD content.

It's not as good simply because that's how 16:9 material in the home began. I doubt televisions could even display a true 16:9 non HD image since how the Wii achieves it is a industry standard for SD and ED content. It's how it is and obviousily it's not going to be as good as more modern advancements.

[j_factor]

Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger

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.

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*

[kedawa]

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.