Does anyone use a widescreen with their game systems. Before I buy one (a new tv), I want to know what they are like. Does DC support widescreen for all/most of the games? Or do yuo have to suffer the little black bars on either side? What about Saturn or Genesis? And newer systems like Gamecube?
Widescreen Game Systems
- Thread starter Jeffrey
- Start date
lordofduct
Established Member
I have a 60" Widescreen
Xbox and PS2 support it and in the internal settings you have to turn it on. Not all games support it, but the PS2 and Xbox force them into it.
As for all other systems. No, they are not supported... but your TV can force it into widescreen. It just stretches the horizontal resolution.
There are different modes of stretching it aswell.
1)Panaramic: it stretches the center a little and the edges a lot. This is good for TV where most of the action you pay attention to is in the middle. Kinda makes games look really retarded.
2)Standard: Stretches it evenly across the entire horizontal. Sprites slightly look fatter, but you hardly notice it.
3)Natural. (i think its called that) This mode will cut off the tops and bottoms some to stretch it up. You lose no aspect ratio... but you lose some of the picture NO GOOD for videogames.
4) no conversion: this one will have the black bars down the sides.
Those are the modes my TV has. Check your manual and it may call them something different, but they'll have something similar.
Xbox and PS2 support it and in the internal settings you have to turn it on. Not all games support it, but the PS2 and Xbox force them into it.
As for all other systems. No, they are not supported... but your TV can force it into widescreen. It just stretches the horizontal resolution.
There are different modes of stretching it aswell.
1)Panaramic: it stretches the center a little and the edges a lot. This is good for TV where most of the action you pay attention to is in the middle. Kinda makes games look really retarded.
2)Standard: Stretches it evenly across the entire horizontal. Sprites slightly look fatter, but you hardly notice it.
3)Natural. (i think its called that) This mode will cut off the tops and bottoms some to stretch it up. You lose no aspect ratio... but you lose some of the picture NO GOOD for videogames.
4) no conversion: this one will have the black bars down the sides.
Those are the modes my TV has. Check your manual and it may call them something different, but they'll have something similar.
That sucks.
It seems to make better sense to just hold on to my 4:3 until most games do support it. As far as I know, most tv programs in 4:3 as well!
What's the use of a plasma or other widescreen if everything I own is 4:3!!! Even my DVD collection would need to be replaced with widescreen versions.
It seems to make better sense to just hold on to my 4:3 until most games do support it. As far as I know, most tv programs in 4:3 as well!
What's the use of a plasma or other widescreen if everything I own is 4:3!!! Even my DVD collection would need to be replaced with widescreen versions.
While widescreen tvs are cool and all, I don't think it's time to throw away all of the standard televisions just yet. Widescreen really isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway. First of all, your only true widescreen support is games and movies in the 1:84 or so aspect ratios. Other games/movies still have bars that are in 2:40 aspect ratios. The argument there is "well, the black bars are smaller in 2.40" But like I said, you're only really going to see the most advantages of 1:84 or so.
Probably 1 out of every 40 or so movies are in or around 1:84 aspect ratios, while *MOST* every new movie is 2:4x. Full screen games and movies really aren't going to look that great on a widescreen tv, even with line doubling (converting 480i to 480p) and upscan conversion (converting 480i to native resolution of television - 480p, 720i, 720p, 1080i, or occasionally/rarely 1080p).
I think the biggest problem is making tvs that support full screen 1:85 televisions, that will most likely be outdated in coming years, due to the majority of movies and games being 2.40.
So, why didn't they just release 2.4x widescreen instead of 1.8x? Most likely because widescreen televisions have actually been out for many years, possibly even as early as the 70s or 80s or so, before being seen on most store shelves. Manufactures probably wanted to stay compatible with the old media. 2.4x aspect televisions would outdate *ALL* previous media, including dvds, because even anamorphic 2.4x dvds have blackbars hardcoded into them. 2.4x televisions would also make it that much less compatible with full screen movies and games. If you think full screen looks bad stretched now, think about how bad it would look stretched on a 2.4x screen.
And you're also right about tv programming being mostly 4:3. As far as any mpeg-2 satellite (dish network, star choice, HITS, bell express vu) provider, even their widescreen movies aren't anamorphic. They're using the old-style letterbox, which also has hardcoded black bars. You can stretch the image to make the black bars disappear on most hdtvs, but there is no quality advantage to widescreen with them. I've heard that there were some licensing issues/problems with broadcasting in anamorphic, but who really knows the reason. Mix that with the fact that they're all highly compressed, low bandwidth channels. Their high def programming may be a bit better.
High def is going to dominate the industry sooner or later, because of government mandates and all. I've talked to my satellite provider awhile back, and they have stated that virtually all pay c-band analog channels will be gone by the end of this year. By 2009, there will be no OTA (over the air) analog television channels left either. Most cable companies will have either been converted to digital, downconvert digital to analog, or go out of business.
Most major providers are starting to go mpeg-4, and what does this mean for OTA and digital cable broadcasts? could mean a lot of nightmares, because there are so many new standards coming with high def programming, no one can agree on one standard.
Probably 1 out of every 40 or so movies are in or around 1:84 aspect ratios, while *MOST* every new movie is 2:4x. Full screen games and movies really aren't going to look that great on a widescreen tv, even with line doubling (converting 480i to 480p) and upscan conversion (converting 480i to native resolution of television - 480p, 720i, 720p, 1080i, or occasionally/rarely 1080p).
I think the biggest problem is making tvs that support full screen 1:85 televisions, that will most likely be outdated in coming years, due to the majority of movies and games being 2.40.
So, why didn't they just release 2.4x widescreen instead of 1.8x? Most likely because widescreen televisions have actually been out for many years, possibly even as early as the 70s or 80s or so, before being seen on most store shelves. Manufactures probably wanted to stay compatible with the old media. 2.4x aspect televisions would outdate *ALL* previous media, including dvds, because even anamorphic 2.4x dvds have blackbars hardcoded into them. 2.4x televisions would also make it that much less compatible with full screen movies and games. If you think full screen looks bad stretched now, think about how bad it would look stretched on a 2.4x screen.
And you're also right about tv programming being mostly 4:3. As far as any mpeg-2 satellite (dish network, star choice, HITS, bell express vu) provider, even their widescreen movies aren't anamorphic. They're using the old-style letterbox, which also has hardcoded black bars. You can stretch the image to make the black bars disappear on most hdtvs, but there is no quality advantage to widescreen with them. I've heard that there were some licensing issues/problems with broadcasting in anamorphic, but who really knows the reason. Mix that with the fact that they're all highly compressed, low bandwidth channels. Their high def programming may be a bit better.
High def is going to dominate the industry sooner or later, because of government mandates and all. I've talked to my satellite provider awhile back, and they have stated that virtually all pay c-band analog channels will be gone by the end of this year. By 2009, there will be no OTA (over the air) analog television channels left either. Most cable companies will have either been converted to digital, downconvert digital to analog, or go out of business.
Most major providers are starting to go mpeg-4, and what does this mean for OTA and digital cable broadcasts? could mean a lot of nightmares, because there are so many new standards coming with high def programming, no one can agree on one standard.
lordofduct
Established Member
AGH! screw Plasma!
Not in the mood to go into the reasons why...
Not in the mood to go into the reasons why...
Questions still linger about how long a plasma TV will last. People will argue both sides. I for one am undecided. If your TV works, stick with that. Thats what I'm doing. Eventually, everything will adopt 1080p, and then those prices will fall. For example, currenly only Blu-Ray and HD-DVD support it (and possibly PS3). As someone pointed out, once cable and satelite adobt MPEG-4 AVC, 1080p support will expand to TV as well.
