There is a very common misconception that regular televisions

Cool, but who cares? Go to /vr/ and maybe someone will care

>>379124412
I would love to participate in this conversation, but i don't know shit, so have a bump and see you on page 10

>>379125068
>>379125379
It's just an infoshit.
I'm just tired of looking at idiots on the internet spouting the retarded "B-but snes/genesis only run their games at 30 fps!!!", so i want to exterminate those (with information) here.

File: autism.gif (497KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 480x270px

>>379124412

>>379126045
Better make a youtube video or something

>>379124412
This is actually how the PS2 rendered graphics. Because it only had a 4MB framebuffer (vram). Instead of producing a 640x480 frame and then outputting it as alternating 640x240 even/odd fields like the Dreamcast, the PS2 rendered actual alternating odd/even FRAMES of something like 640x240 and output each as fields. This is why PS2 had so many jaggies. There were progressive titles later on but they had visual compromises (512x384). There was even one simply poly game with an internal high res nearly HD but output in SD (super sampled). I forgot which game it was. It was not GT4 whose 1080i mode was still rendered in 512x384 or something like that.

>>379124412
Nevermind, I was a bit confused. You're referring to 240p where one field is always black. Wii actually outputs 240p. Makes it a good retro gaming console

>>379126546
There were quite a few things on PS2 to make it a jaggy shit other than that, like some games not supporting mip mapping, games running at actual 320x240...

>>379126939
Indeed. But the rendering fields as frames was the biggest culprit. Which games ran at 320x240? People said Ico did but Ico was just a field rendering game as well, although perhaps the horizontal resolution truly was 320. That's pretty bad if true. Maximo and the
first Devil May Cry had very low rendering resolutions but were 60fps. The field rendering is the main reason PS2 games look like shit on HDTVs. Even PC emulators have to do deinterlacing for these games and no deinterlacing is perfect resulting in a lot of combing artifacts.

I know people always refer to the PS2 as "king" due to its first holiday lineup and massive library and 150+ million sales (over 50 million came after the PS3 launched and mostly from South America where it did not officially exist prior) but developers hated it. It was never good hardware. It was always shit but it sold in hype because the pre-release E3 tech demos looked like CG (and not nearly like final hardware) and it had a DVD player....

>>379127942
The upscaler on the HDTVs is very, very badly designed.
It's not even possible to start to grasp why the fuck they would not just think a bit and support 240p properly.

>>379128279
Do any modern TVs even support 240p? My Sony TV from 2008 supports it but my newer Vizio TV does not. It displays a half picture that flickers

>>379128595
I have no clue, but that's quite bizarre.

>>379124412
The only thing I remember about CRT TVs and monitors were the constant headaches. They stopped once I switched to LCD displays.

Isn't it funny when a 19 year old boy brags on youtube about how much better crts are for retro games?

>>379129079
Well, you're sensitive to "slow" retresh rates i guess, and games DO look better.
But the ideal probably would be just an high def OLED screen that simulates the scanline filtering and high response rate but without the flicker.