|
when playing games on the 360 in High def there was negligible difference to the eye between the quality of difference of interlaced and progressive scan pictures.
BUT earlier for the first time i watched a DVD through my 360 at 480P compared to usual 480i on my HDTV. And let me tell you, the difference was incredible.
when i speak of these things i speak as they are first hand accounts as i have experienced it myself, and Progresive scan completely defeated interlaced when i watched star wars episode 3 (to test P to see if it was any good). the effects were simply amasing, jawdropping difference.
and that is JUST a different type of scan, the resolution was still crappy 480 (i/p) but the progressive scan gives a REAL BIG boost to the quality of the image. not in terms of more detail (as that can only be achieved with a higher resolution) but in terms of what can be seen on screen, Progressive has twice as meany lines on screen as Interlaced and it was definately seeable when i was watching that film.
outstanding.
this is first hand info. i JUST experienced it.
its clear now that with games there is very very little difference between I and P (and i have 20/20 vision) in terms of quality.
BUT with DVD's for example (and probably normal HDTV being viewed by broadcast, like sky's new HDTV channels soon to be released) the difference is great.
image quality on an LCD with Interlaced is worse when compared side by side with a CRT showing the same interlaced picture, BUT LCD's can display progressive which with is far better than Interlaced for watching TV HDTV programs and DVD's etc.
but for gaming there is practically no difference.
just thought that those of you who didnt know, now know.
and those of you who *thought* that you knew, actually *do* know.
lol
Don't judge the consoles by specs, more isnt always better, espec in PS3 specs.i know the truth, ask if u wanna know.......
Do not compete without valid correct technicality on your terms of the argument.
|
