How do I connect my N94 to a HDTV?

[Anonymous No.2243912]

I tried using the cable from my WII but the plug thing is like half a millimeter too big to fit into the port on the console...

[Anonymous No.2243924]

You don't. Especially looks terrible on 5th gen.

[Anonymous No.2244014]

>>2243912
Depends entirely on your TV. If you've got an S-video TV and an NTSC N64, that's an option. Alternatively just get a N64 composite cable.

There's also the RGB mod - http://retrorgb.com/n64rgbmod.html

And there's an HDMI mod in the works - http://retroactive.be/tech_n64_hdmi.php

The output will be very dependent on your TV. The N64 has odd scaling behavior. For example, a 320x240 game like Mario 64 is rendered at 320x240, scaled to 640x240 by the Video Interface chip, and your TV\monitor rescales it to fullscreen.

[Anonymous No.2244023]

>>2244014
No HDTV in the last 5 years worth anything will recognize a 240p signal. Probably wont have s video either. Scart definitely not unless you live in Euro land.

[Anonymous No.2244035]

>>2244023
>No HDTV in the last 5 years worth anything will recognize a 240p signal.
The N64 doesn't output at 240p.

[Anonymous No.2244038]

>>2244035
>The N64 doesn't output at 240p.
What?

[Anonymous No.2244039]

>>2244038
The video is scaled to 640x240 because reasons. Or 640x480 interlaced for some games.

[Anonymous No.2244040]

>>2244038
I think it does 480i or some other fucked up resolution

[Anonymous No.2244043]

>>2244040
On some games.
>>2244039
>The video is scaled to 640x240 because reasons.
You keep talking and I have no idea what you're talking about?

N64 for almost all games outputs 240p.

[Anonymous No.2244049]

>>2244043
>>The video is scaled to 640x240 because reasons.
>You keep talking and I have no idea what you're talking about?
>N64 for almost all games outputs 240p.
http://forum.pj64-emu.com/showthread.php?t=4554

>What happens to the above raw video image through this "DAC" process, is that the N64 video interface (VI) component is prepared to adjust the video image for a variety of different, semi-predictable televisions. One problem is that the above FB (frame buffer) image is 320x240, but NTSC televisions will often have a native resolution of something like 640x480.

>Actually, the height is already perfect at 240 pixels, even assuming a native NTSC resolution of 640x480. The real problem here is the width of only 320 pixels...that needs to be 640 pixels wide to scale to 640x480. The vertical dimension isn't really that complicated since the N64 can always just output as many scanlines as are needed to construct the complete image on the TV, even if there are too many (generally no more than the PAL standard of 625 lines).

>Once we have scaled the horizontal dimension to a fixed length of 640 pixels in width for the TV, we have the below image. Do not be surprised at the horizontal anti-aliasing, interpolation and other techniques of improved video quality in the below image. No doubt that you may find the transition from the above image, to the below image, unexpected. Like I said in the block of text just before this, the real problem was for the VI to somehow scale the 320x240 image to a width of 640--a game-controlled algorithm signaled by the VI's current status in the state machine, a game-specific algorithm best ignored for the purposes of this explanation.

[Anonymous No.2244058]

>>2244043
>>2244049
tl;dr, the N64 scales 320x240 images to 640x240 before they're sent to the TV.

[Anonymous No.2244064]

>>2244058
>>2244049
That's some emulator garbage that I don't have a clue about or care.
I know for a fact the N64 isn't sending the TV a 640x240 image.

[Anonymous No.2244080]

>>2244064
>I know for a fact the N64 isn't sending the TV a 640x240 image.
You know this how exactly?

[Anonymous No.2244095]

>>2244080
The input is detected as normal 240p. I really don't have a clue where the emulation people are getting that crazy batshit resolution from. No wonder N64 emulation is so fucked. That explains a lot if that guy is seen as a "credible" source for the N64 emulators.
Especially when he went on saying and I'm paraphrasing "TV's stretch the 240 to 480 for a 620x480 signal".
That was some head shaking shit. And then right after he goes to "show off" some horrible looking filters and shaders.

[Anonymous No.2244106]

>>2244095
>The input is detected as normal 240p.
Here's a challenge, then.

Put the game into high resolution mode. What resolution does your TV report back?

For example, Acclaim games render at 480x360 in high resolution mode. I'm not sure what their VI resolution is. Factor 5 games render at 400x442 and VI upscales it to 640x480 interlaced. (Menus run at 510x221 in some Factor 5 titles, but that's another matter.)

[Anonymous No.2244116]

>>2244106
Doesn't that just throw the game into 480i?

[Anonymous No.2244120]

>>2244095
Another pickler is this.

Perfect Dark renders at 320x222 low and 640x222 high in NTSC versions, and 320x268 low 448x268 high in PAL versions. THe VI is scaling that to SOMETHING for display on TVs, but what? PAL is a whole other issue, to be fair.

[Anonymous No.2244126]

>>2244120
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Perfect dark outputs 480i and in 16:9. Not many games output that.

[Anonymous No.2244135]

This got me wondering.

The crappy clone consoles AtGames is putting out, they've only got composite video and mono sound. But wouldn't plugging one of these into an HDTV, the standard model of televisions these days, look just as awful (possibly worse) than an actual genesis plugged into an HDTV?

These are made for casual schlubs who don't know anything about real gaming, and yet these are marketed into a situation where you're hooking up something to a TV that can't display it right?

[Anonymous No.2244138]

>>2244135
I haven't used one but I'd assume so. The TV wont see it as 240p but instead as 480i.

[Anonymous No.2244141]

>>2243912
>>2243912
>How do I connect my N94 to a HDTV
>my N94
>m94

I'm the only person who recognizes this is a troll thread but I'll still give the correct answer

>RGB mod OG gray NTSC-U N64 (easiest RGB mod)
>SNES RGB SCART cable
>XRGB upscaler

[Anonymous No.2244142]

What's a N94?

[Anonymous No.2244146]

>>2244141
Ask me how I know you have never done anything in your greentext list.

[Anonymous No.2244149]

>>2244126
>Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Perfect dark outputs 480i and in 16:9. Not many games output that.
There are actually no N64 games that output at true 480i ingame, as far as I am aware. A fair few games support 16:9 aspect ratios. Even Mission Impossible supports it.

N64 resolutions are confusing because the N64's Video Interface chip takes the framebuffer output and does stuff to it. Scaling, anti-aliasing, etc.

Turok 2 has three resolution modes.

Low: 282x224
High Letterboxed: 480x224
High: 480x360

To be frank, the N64's VI is poorly understood, and the behavior is partially game dependent. (Similarly the N64's refresh rate is 99% software controlled. It's not as if NTSC consoles are hard locked to 60Hz and PAL consoles hard locked to 50Hz.)

[Anonymous No.2244152]

>>2244149
Aren't all of those resolutions seen as 240p or 480i?

[Anonymous No.2244153]

>>2244146
Okay. How do you "know" I've never done anything in my greentext list?

[Anonymous No.2244154]

>>2244141
>SNES RGB SCART
Whoa, that actually works? Thought you had to mod?

[Anonymous No.2244156]

>>2244153
Because it's not that simple.

[Anonymous No.2244161]

>>2244152
>Aren't all of those resolutions seen as 240p or 480i?
I'm not entirely sure. One theory I've seen is that the N64 only ever outputs at 640x480i or 640x240i. It's kinda interesting how Perfect Dark runs at 640x222 in the NTSC builds. When Perfect Dark's resolution is changed on a real TV on the NTSC version, does the TV have to adjust? Because if not, that would likely indicate the console was sending a 640x222 (upscaled from 320x222) signal when running in low resolution mode, and the N64 merely switches the internal resolution to 640x222 without the VI output resolution changing.

I don't own an NTSC copy so I can't test.

[Anonymous No.2244168]

>>2244161
>One theory I've seen is that the N64 only ever outputs at 640x480i or 640x240i
Sorry, I meant 640x480i and 640x240p. And this only applies to NTSC N64s since PAL ones handle resolution a bit differently.

[Anonymous No.2244171]

>>2244168
>>2244161
640x240p makes no sense to me.

[Anonymous No.2244176]

>>2244135
I can attest it looks like shit. I had to set one of these up for a display at work. I don't remember what model TV we used for it, but it looked like absolute ass.

[Anonymous No.2244195]

>>2244135
I'm confused. Didn't you just answer your own question? It's because they don't know anything about the way they're suppose to look that it doesn't bother them.

[Anonymous No.2244223]

>>2244171
Not him, and I have no idea if the N64 is capable of outputting those resolutions, but in modeline terms for most CRTs that's possible.

Hardware can output anything it's made to, but CRTs could only handle certain signals. SDTV is under about 16kHz Horizontal Sync rate.

From any normal modeline:

Pixel Clock/Dot Clock = Vertical Sync (Refresh Rate) x Vertical Resolution x Horizontal Resolution

But!

Horizontal Sync = Vertical Sync x Vertical Resolution

As in, the number of horizontal pixels doesn't influence the Horizontal Sync rate. Assuming an ideal CRT with an infinite Pixel Clock capability, you can pretty much have an infinite number of pixels in each horizontal line. This isn't the case of course, but all SD sets can handle doubling the pixel clock more than happily, AFAIK. How they display depends on the set as well, consumer SD CRT's weren't always great at showing more detail.

This method lets you get higher resolution out of SD displays. 640x240 is used on the Amiga in a lot of cases, and looks crisper on displays like the 1084s.

[Anonymous No.2244230]

While people are discussing resolutions in this thread, and the QTDDTOT thread is pretty inactive, I may as well go ahead and ask this here.

Does anybody know if a PAL Everdrive 64 is capable of displaying NTSC games in 60hz and without borders? Interested in purchasing one, but I am unsure of how this works!

[Anonymous No.2244235]

>>2244223
Not saying it isn't possible it just makes no sense.

If the TV was seeing 640x240p then the image would either be excessively wide and need to scaled down or have a crazy amount of overscan. Neither seems to be the case.

[Anonymous No.2244253]

>>2244149
>There are actually no N64 games that output at true 480i ingame, as far as I am aware.
This is gonna sound batshit crazy, but I've been doing N64 emulation bug testing.

Supercross 2000. That EA Sports game.

It's framebuffer renders at 620x480 in high resolution mode and 496x240 in normal\medium resolution.

Vigilante 8 in the secret "Ultra" resolution mode runs at 640x472

[Anonymous No.2244259]

>>2244230
>Does anybody know if a PAL Everdrive 64 is capable of displaying NTSC games in 60hz and without borders? Interested in purchasing one, but I am unsure of how this works!
Short answer - yes. Long answer, there may be some minor problems. When run via an Everdrive, the NTSC games *should* make the PAL N64 output at 60Hz because this behavior is controlled by the games themselves.

[Anonymous No.2244265]

>>2244235
>If the TV was seeing 640x240p then the image would either be excessively wide and need to scaled down or have a crazy amount of overscan. Neither seems to be the case.
The idea is for the image to be the correct width on a 640x480 NTSC display. (Assuming the scaling theory is true.)

[Anonymous No.2244272]

>>2244259
Fascinating, thank you. There isn't much discussion or documentation about this subject that I could find, so I appreciate it!

[Anonymous No.2244274]

>>2244265
>The idea is for the image to be the correct width on a 640x480 NTSC display
The signal is still seen as 240p and treated as 240p.

[Anonymous No.2244275]

>>2244272
Please bear in mind the information is second hand since I don't own one myself.

[Anonymous No.2244280]

>>2244274
Does the TV actually say "640x240 or "320x240" or just "240p"? Because a lot of TVs just give you the vertical resolution.

[Anonymous No.2244295]

>>2244280
I don't have a TV that detects 240p anymore but my xrgb sees it as 240p and treats it as 240p.

[Anonymous No.2244927]

>>2244161
>>2244168
>>2244171
Analog signals do not have individually defined pixels.

Jesus fuck.

[Anonymous No.2244949]

>>2244156

[Anonymous No.2244952]

>>2244927
Who the hell invented this phrase. They are retarded.

[OP No.2245117]

ok first this isn't a troll thread... I meant to put N64 I just misspelt.
Not to further a stereotype but I'm just an 18 year old girl who doesn't exactly know that much about technology...
So if someone could put all this into layman's terms for me that would be really great?
Also I'm from the UK and therefore so is my TV if that changes anything.

[Anonymous No.2245136]

>>2245117
Try buying an RCA cable from the internet,. They will sell it with the name or either RCA cable or AV cable for SNES/N64/Gamecube (they all use the same one)´. It should have three cords/plugs coming out of it, red, white, and yellow. If your TV doesn't have those kinds of plugins side by side, you need a converter to scart, which they sometimes sell simultaneously with the SNES/N64/GAMECUBE AV-cord. I'm bit off with how much pound is, but it shouldn't be too much, less than a tenner that's for sure. If you don't recognize scart, it's an almost rectandular big thingy. Or google it, it's very recognizable.

tl;rd RCA/AV-cable for SNES/N64/GC should do it.

[Anonymous No.2245194]

>>2244154
No. It's not that simple. Pic related.

>>2244156
Yeah, it is that simple. Pic related

[Anonymous No.2245206]

>>2244049
Why the hell wouldn't 640x240 be 240p?

[Anonymous No.2245208]

>>2245117
>Im a grill gamer btw

[OP No.2245235]

thanks >>2245136 that's really helpful! :D

[Anonymous No.2245243]

>>2245117
if you have a SCART port on your tv, i'd do an RGB mod

note that having a SCART port doesn't gaurantee the tv does RGB, but there's a good chance it does if the tv isn't complete shit

[Anonymous No.2245248]

>>2245235
Except it's gonna look like shit. I stil
think you're trolling but if you're not, know that the N64 is literally the worst major con'sole to try to use on an HDTV. It not only lacks a pure digital (RGB) video signal without modification (and UK mods require a $90 board), it also has a blurry, primitive hardware anti-aliasing designed with SDTVs in mind.

If you want to get it running as nice as possible yourself, get an SVideo cable and an HDTV. If you want it to really run right on an HDTV find a serious, suspender wearing pipe smoking neckbeard. Show him your tits and have him do it for you.

[Anonymous No.2245379]

>>2245194
Read the whole thing.
Not that simple and if you did do as he said you'd fry your XRGB.

[Anonymous No.2245426]

>>2245379
>Fry XRGB by feeding it RGB

[Anonymous No.2245437]

>>2243912

You don't. Nintendo was incredibly stupid and made a mess of this console's video output, from a crappy encoder to no native RGB support. Heck, the PAL ones don't even support S-Video either. It will look aweful and will make you puke after 20 minutes of gameplay.

Go with an emulator, it's your best option.

[Anonymous No.2245439]

>>2244135
It looks way worse than the original Megadrive even on a CRT.

[Anonymous No.2245440]

>>2245426
You're feeding a 5v line into ground.

Are you people serious? I've noticed lately a lot of people that have obviously spent 5mins on google and think they're some kind of expert about this. "Oh just throw an xrgb in and you'll be good"... No you wont just be good if you're so ignorant that you don't understand the pinouts of the plugs used.

These type of posts are usually accompanied by some reaction image and greentext so I'm just going to assume it's more kids from /v/.

[Anonymous No.2245441]

>>2243912
retard

[Anonymous No.2245453]

>>2245440
Let me know when you finally realize you don't know shit about Nintendo.

[Anonymous No.2245464]

>>2245453
Man you're really still going? It's pretty obvious you don't own an xrgb or an kind device like that. Look at your own image that you just posted.

[Anonymous No.2245475]

>>2245464
You're right. I don't own an XRGB because I play retro games on CRT as God intended. However, I sure as fuck know how to get proper RGBs out of retro consoles so basically the only claim you could possibly be making is that RGBs over SCART will fry an XRGB. I certainly hope that's not the case since people seem to like and use them.

[Anonymous No.2245481]

>>2245475
I'll give you a hint. Go look at the spec sheet for the XRGBs. Any of the micomsoft scalers actually. Specifically look at the supported inputs.

[Razz No.2245526]

>OP posts a slightly less retarded version of pic related
>Still gets 50+ serious posts

Bless you for being so helpful, /vr/, but please stop letting /v/ trick you so much.

[Anonymous No.2245992]

>>2244259
Wait.
So my old PAL N64 could run 60hz games if I get e.g. a Passport 3 Plus to run an US NTSC game?

[Anonymous No.2246010]

>>2245526
Poor /vr/. Too nice for its own good.

[Anonymous No.2246038]

Do you still not have any one of these?

If so, just use this. It may not have the CRT look but it'll work. You may have to set your Cable/Tuner settings to have its channels think its connected to bunny ears.

You aren't going to get HD anything with N64 so why bother trying to connect with component or any way else. Just do it the old fashioned way.

[Anonymous No.2246058]

>>2246038

Doing and going through the tuner of new TVs will often create so much lag that it will make the game unplayable.

[Anonymous No.2246216]

>>2244235
Of course it's possible. A CRT doesn't have a fixed resolution. The light guns just shoot more frequently and/or closer together, squeezing more pixels into each horizontal line. If you read what i posted, it's the number of lines per screen, or Horizontal Refresh, that matters more. The 640 x 240 signal will still be 240p, as anon notes here: >>2244274

>>2244927
Well, perhaps, but the TV has to draw individual dots, or light up clusters of phosphors somehow. It's convenient to refer to the resolution of, say, a 320 x 240p signal as being in pixels. If you object, what unit of measure would you prefer we use? The signal is 240 -what- wide?

[Anonymous No.2246248]

>>2246216
>Well, perhaps, but the TV has to draw individual dots, or light up clusters of phosphors somehow.
The color raster is not synchronized with the face of the TV. There are 3 continuous beams of electrons being emitted and deflected. Each one will end up masked only when it hits the screen.

>If you object, what unit of measure would you prefer we use? The signal is 240 -what- wide?
Each line has an active video area, comprised of 3 simultaneous and continuous analog signals for around 64 microseconds.

Analog TV systems do not have pixels. There is, at most, a bandwidth limitation given the type of signal and the physical characteristics of the display. This is usually measured in "TV Lines". A system with "480 TV Lines" means that 480 individual vertical lines can be resolved in a horizontal span equal to the height of the picture.

[Anonymous No.2246268]

>>2246216
crt's don't have a fixed horizontal resolution, only a limited number of horizontal lines (vertical resolution) that can be drawn per frame

this is why we use "480i" "240p" as so on, there is no hard horizontal resolution limit

the only thing that limits the effective horizontal resolution is the color mask, on black and white crt's there isn't even that in the way

one time i made a 2560x240p mode for my crt tv, which works fine, obviously the color mask is no way near dense enough to discern individual horizontal pixels, but it has its purposes (namely, 2560 evenly divides into 320, 512 and 640, all common horizontal resolutions in psx games, which is good for emulation use)

[Anonymous No.2246286]

>>2246216
>>2246248
>>2246268
People seem to forget that 240p leaves odd scanlines blank, so that the image preserves its (non existent) 480 ratio no matter what.

Try stretching >>2244049 and applying fake scanlines, bam aspect raidou achieved.

[Anonymous No.2246292]

>>2246286
>240p leaves odd scanlines blank

I meant 15KHz in general, since 480i switches between odd and even.

[Anonymous No.2246303]

>>2246248
I know what you're saying, and i know the argument, i just think it's convenient to speak in terms of the quantifiable resolution of the signal, no matter that the hardware doesn't see things in those terms.

Otherwise we'd end up saying things like the "The game output a video signal 64 microseconds wide per line, with a viewable region of x, 240 viewable lines per frame with a vertical sync of 59.9996Hz". It's a kind of shorthand to say "Normal 240p is 320 x 240 pixels at 60Hz." I'm still communicating everything you wanted, because you know enough to decipher that and you know what it really means. For people who don't it gives them a good idea of the video picture they'd expect to be seeing.

[Anonymous No.2246312]

>>2246268
I did post that that further up, if you bother to go back ;)

[Anonymous No.2246315]

>>2246292
>>2246286
That make sense if it was outputing a perfect 640x480 ratio. But it's not. There's overscan on the N64.
I'll say it again. 640x240 output makes no damn sense and none of those images or explanations account for what the TV actually sees which is a 240p signal with overscan. Like normal.

[Anonymous No.2246325]

>>2246315
>But it's not. There's overscan on the N64.

Then it's 640x224, because I think 448 is the maximum number of rows you can display in 60hz mode without going into overscan area (525). That image included overscan

[Anonymous No.2246328]

>>2246325
There's horizontal overscan though. I may not not know the technical speak to explain it but I know a CRT doesn't just jam the entire horizontal resolution into the display area. There is overscan.

[Anonymous No.2246349]

>>2246315
>640x240 output makes no damn sense
The pixels are roughly twice as tall as they are wide. They come out twice as fast as at 320x240. How are you not getting this?

[Anonymous No.2246357]

>>2246328
Yeah, it's perfectly noticeable in that screen he posted earlier, which by the way is named "raw_vi". I know VI is the vertical interrupt, which means VBlank, screenbuffer ready to be pushed on screen. How was that screenbuffer snapped? Is it digital or analog? If it was ripped from the console itself then you'd just need to count the individual pixels until you come up with a consisent integer number of them, which might as well be 640. If it was a digital 32bit rip then you'd already know the output resolution. 640x240 (counting overscan) doesn't sound implausible. The original rendering resolution doesn't shift from whateverXwhatever, it will always be rescaled into a 640x240 signal because that's how the N64 does things.

[Anonymous No.2246362]

>>2246349
>They come out twice as fast
Stop.

[Anonymous No.2246364]

>>2246357
How's it outputting that if there's overscan?

[Anonymous No.2246370]

>>2246303
It's important to precisely specify the video timings, though, if you're really having a discussion about video modes. I could scan out a line of 320 pixels very quickly, with large front/back porches, and get a squished image in the center of my screen. Likewise, I could scan it out very slowly, with smaller-than-normal porches, and it would be stretched horizontally on most sets.

The physical height of the picture is pretty well fixed, because if you deviate too much from the standard, the TV will lose sync. It's always approximately 262.5 lines per field, and approximately 60 fields per second, so you've always got about the same spacing between two adjacent lines. The spacing between two adjacent pixels is variable, though, and every console is different. Nominally, a dot-clock of 135/22 MHz should give you square pixels on an NTSC television, no matter how many are active per line.

[Anonymous No.2246371]

>>2246362
https://pineight.com/mw/index.php?title=Dot_clock_rates

What, you think all of the pixels are sent to the display simultaneously or something? If I switch from 320x240 to 640x240, and keep the same horizontal and vertical periods (and porches/etc), then I'm just doubling the pixel clock.

[Anonymous No.2246372]

>>2246349
>They come out twice as fast as at 320x240
LUL WAT?

[Anonymous No.2246373]

>>2246371
It displays 1 frame as fast as it can reach the next. The resolution has nothing to do with how fast the image is displayed. You don't magically gain FPS by increasing resolution.

[Anonymous No.2246378]

>>2246372
An analog video signal has a certain line period, i.e. how long it takes to sweep the raster across the screen and then back (in retrace) once. If I keep this timing constant, and increase the horizontal resolution, I need a faster dot clock.

1 second / 60 fields per second / 263 lines per field = approximately 64 microseconds per line. More pixels on the line = less time per pixel.

>>2246373
>The resolution has nothing to do with how fast the image is displayed

If I have more pixels on the screen (at a fixed frame rate), I need to output the pixels faster.


Please, learn how a RAMDAC/CRTC works.

[Anonymous No.2246382]

>>2246364
Overscan is part of any equipment that outputs analog signals to standard SD TVs so you don't get cuts in the picture. The maximum legit overscan for video (without taking CRTs into account) should be 720 horizontal pixels but the N64 can do away with just 640, since on 60hz it can render up to 480 vertical pixels and 640 is coherent with the TVs' 4:3 ratio.

[Anonymous No.2246384]

>>2246362
>>2246372
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.2246385]

>>2246382
The TV doesn't care about pixels, it just needs correct timing.

www.intersil.com/data/tb/tb368.pdf

[Anonymous No.2246389]

>>2246378
A CRT always has the same number of pixels on the screen.
A CRT doesn't increase or decrease the input delay ever. If it's receiving a 60hz single it's displaying an image on average ever 16ms. It doesn't break physics and pull frames out of the warp for you at will.

[Anonymous No.2246394]

>>2246384
Leave idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>2246385
If you want it to display something that the eyes can actually see then yes pixels matter.

[Anonymous No.2246396]

>>2246389
>A CRT always has the same number of pixels on the screen.
No, a CRT will always take the same amount of time to scan a line/field. (Fixed-mode TVs, that is - not multiscan monitors.)

I can cram as many or as few pixels as I want on a line. If I scan pixels out very slowly, I end up with fat pixels like an Atari or Nintendo. If I scan them out quickly, I end up with tall pixels like an Amiga.

>If it's receiving a 60hz single it's displaying an image on average ever 16ms.
That's correct. If I want a higher-resolution image, I need to output more pixels in that same 16ms. Each pixel takes less time to output. The dot-clock is faster.

[Anonymous No.2246405]

>>2246394
>Leave idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>>/v/

>>2246394
>If you want it to display something that the eyes can actually see then yes pixels matter.
Watch this:


>$ gtf 640 240 60
> # 640x240 @ 60.00 Hz (GTF) hsync: 14.94 kHz; pclk: 10.52 MHz
> Modeline "640x240_60.00" 10.52 640 616 672 704 240 241 244 249 -HSync +Vsync

>$ gtf 320 240 60
> # 320x240 @ 60.00 Hz (GTF) hsync: 14.94 kHz; pclk: 5.26 MHz
> Modeline "320x240_60.00" 5.26 320 304 336 352 240 241 244 249 -HSync +Vsync

Note that the line and field rates are identical, as are all of the vertical timings. The pixel clock is doubled when I double the horizontal resolution.

[Anonymous No.2246406]

>>2246396
A CRT scans the whole screen for every frame. You can have nothing but 1 pixel at the bottom right. Still going to take 16ms to display that 1 pixel with a 60hz signal.

You have to be high with this shit man.

[Anonymous No.2246409]

>>2246405
I remember that the next time my CRT is just flashing colors. There's a wonderful game on there but pixels don't matter.
I feed any TV a signal it likes. Doesn't mean shit for the actual output image.

[Anonymous No.2246410]

>>2246406
>Still going to take 16ms to display that 1 pixel with a 60hz signal.
That individual pixel will be displayed once every 16ms. It's not going to take the whole 16ms just to output that one pixel. A typical dot-clock is around 5MHz to 8MHz on older video game consoles. (Meaning, a pixel takes around 150-200ns to output.) NES and SNES use 5.37MHz. Genesis uses 6.71MHz in 40H mode. The former gives slightly fat pixels; the latter, slightly tall.

[Anonymous No.2246417]

>>2246410
It takes a full 16ms to display the last row of a CRT with a 60Hz signal. The whole image isn't displayed instantly. The top row is almost instant. Middle takes about 8ms. Lastly the bottom takes 16ms. Then it goes to the new frame.

[Anonymous No.2246423]

>>2246385
>>2246396
Yeah, but that's just technical details the consoles takes care of, I don't think someone cares if the pixels get modulated twice as fast, N64 needed 640 dots for that faux blur, the time it takes to render the whole sets of fields remains constant. Sorry if I look like I'm beside your points, I'm not that other guy you were arguing with before and I don't know what I'm supposed to discuss.

[Anonymous No.2246429]

>>2246417
You're talking about latency, relative to the beginning of the active video area. The CRT is sweeping a uniform raster across the entire screen. From the start of the first line to the end of the first line is 64us. From the start of the 100th line to the end of the 100th line is 64us. From the start of the 262nd line to the end of the 262nd line is 64us. Each line takes the same amount of time to scan. Within each line, each pixel also takes the same amount of time to scan. The very first pixel of the active video area takes 150ns or so to scan. So does the very last pixel. The whole process is serial; no two pixels are being illuminated at once. The electron beam is being deflected across the image, while voltages are being fed into the video amps. As each pixel is output by the video DAC, the voltage on the video amp will change, and so will the brightness of the image spot. If I output pixels at a faster rate, the brightness of the beam will be changing at a faster rate as it travels left-to-right across the screen. Each pixel will then appear less wide.

[Anonymous No.2246440]

>>2246349
Imagine trying to explain superwide 480p to someone like that.

[Anonymous No.2246443]

>>2246440
Yeah, it's making my head hurt. I don't know how I can make this any clearer, but I'm out of time right now.

I'd suggest anyone interested read the Standard Handbook of Video and Television Engineering, by Whitaker and Benson.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.2246448]

>>2246429
You can test this out by displaying multiple clocks on a CRT image. All clocks will display the same time. But with a high speed camera it'll show the clock on top is faster then bottom clocks.
Or you can do something like this.

So no I don't know where you're getting your crackpot theory but it sure isn't supported in the real world.

[Anonymous No.2246462]

>>2246443
The sad thing is they may become video engineers and never need understand CRTs.

[Anonymous No.2246464]

>>2246440
I understand the resolution for the 50th damn time. I don't understand how the N64 is outputting it though.

[Anonymous No.2246547]

>>2246464
It's outputting 480i at 59.94hz, (though iirc the hypothetical troll n94 sic. was PAL), and when 480i is laid down in such a way that odd and even fields go on top of one another, we call that 240p. Whatever the N64s internal resolution is doesn't matter, it comes out as an interlaced, standard definition signal. The N64 is actually capable of a lot of different internal resolutions and some games use multiple ones in the same game, even going back and forth from 480i to 240p. Even using higher horizontal resolutions could improve graphical detail, especially in games with a lot of horizontal motion but it taxes the N64's processor too.

I understand how weird and alien our analog proto-technology is but that's how it is.

[Anonymous No.2246549]

>>2246315
I'm trying to follow what you're saying... you're confused as to how a 320 x 240 240p signal and a 640 x 240 240p signal can appear the same size, regardless of the fact one appear to have double the horizontal resolution? If so...

The point of the posting has been to make it clear that a 240p signal can have any horizontal width (assuming an ideal CRT) AND that any 240p signal will, within reasonable limits, appear in the same ratio. So a 320 x 240 image and a 640 x 240 image appear in the same 4:3 ratio on the same screen, everything else being equal and correct.

[Anonymous No.2246561]

>>2246547
It's detect as 240p though not 480i. Been over this already.
>>2246549
One of the buggiest confusions is I think people aren't using the visible pixels as the actual resolution.

[Anonymous No.2246574]

>>2246038
Burn it with fire.

[Anonymous No.2246580]

>>2246370
>I know what you're saying and I know the argument.

Yes. All that information is critical when you want to really play with something like soft15kHz or VMMaker/ArcadeOSD.

My point was that regardless of the modeline used, and how that can manipulate the size and position of the image on screen, it helps to use a quick reference above that level of detail.

>>2246440
>>2246429
>>2246549
Omfg that guy has to be trolling. If not, the last attempt might be to do things graphically. How can he not get that the faster you draw pixels (ahem), the more of them you can squeeze into a single line in the same amount of time?

[Anonymous No.2246592]

>>2246580
Do you people think CRTs have a variable of pixels are something? The pixel count is constant.

[Anonymous No.2246607]

>>2246592
Hah, now i know you're trolling. Wow, you took us all for a ride though :)

[Anonymous No.2246615]

>>2246607
Wow you guys legitimately think a CRT has a variable of pixels. No wonder this thread is fucked.

[Anonymous No.2246627]

>>2246592
it's not nearly that simple

[Anonymous No.2246629]

>>2246627
It is though.

[Anonymous No.2246658]

>>2245992
>>2245992
>>2245992
Can someone please respond to this? I am interested, too.

[Anonymous No.2246669]

>>2246658

Sorry I'm kind of busy right now, bb later

[Anonymous No.2246689]

>>2244038
It doesn't if you have the Expansion Pak.

[Anonymous No.2246710]

>>2246689
>It doesn't [output 240p] if you have the Expansion Pak.
Really? I always thought that very few N64 games even noticed the pak was there, though i'll admit those that did would often output 480i using it. A like two games needed it to begin with.

[Anonymous No.2246720]

>>2246710
Exactly, don't listen to him, games don't magically output 480i with the EP if they're not programmed for it.

[Anonymous No.2246726]

>>2246629
it's really not

[Anonymous No.2246734]

>>2246726
Sheesh, stop feeding the troll already

[Anonymous No.2246736]

>>2246734
>>2246726
Oh magical variable pixel CRT. Pull frames from the nether for ultra fast high res output.

[Anonymous No.2246820]

>>2246736
...

>>2246734
yea, alright

[Anonymous No.2246825]

>>2246710
the expansion pak adds 4M system ram, that's all

like all software, it's completely up to the game how or if it uses that extra memory, some games have enhancements to use the extra space, some require it (majoras mask and perfect dark multiplayer come to mind)

[Anonymous No.2246830]

>>2246561
>It's detect as 240p though not 480i. Been over this already.
Your display or decoder or whatever is giving you that information is able to detect the difference between 240p and 480i then. It's not that hard to spot scanlines, you know. I think that what's confusing you is that 240p is really not at all like say 480p or 720p in that it doesn't have a fixed horizontal resolution.

[Anonymous No.2246838]

>>2246615
Ohhhh okay so this guy is a troll too. He's fucking with us on the various definitions of "pixel". By modern nomenclature, CRTs do not have pixels at all. They have dots and those dots have a pitch.