Just got my component cables in today, connected them and have been enjoying the new look of things...

TV - Samsung LN-S4695D

Is it just me, or does the 16:9 setting look unaturally streatched on a widescreen tv? I noticed this during wii sports, namely during bowling; this was not the case when setting the wii to 4:3 (on both the wii and the tv...)

Anyone experience this as well??

First off, switch it to 16:9 and 480p in the Wii Settings menu. That is your problem....

First off, switch it to 16:9 and 480p in the Wii Settings menu. That is your problem....

Maybe you misunderstood my posting, or I wasn't clear; the settings on both my monitor/television as well as the Wii correspond with each other.

I am stating that it appears that the Wii was not developed with a "widescreen" viewing audience in mind. Yet that is merely my assumption.

I find that most games I've played are designed for widescreen... but seem stretched yes... Like I loaded up trauma center last night, and although it's completely playable it doesn't seem designed for widescreen. Zelda is on the other hand... and super monkey ball seems to be... and dragon ball z... some menus seem intended for 4:3 but the gameplay is fine.

I believe it's because the pixel count doesn't change. 16:9 with 480 vertical pixels would mean 853 horizontal pixels, but the Wii seems to stay locked in 4:3 resolution and you have to stretch it. Does the Wii actually call it 16:9 or just widescreen?

I have my TV set to the Aspect setting and with composite cables, Wii Sports always filled up the 16:9 screen and I've felt that it looks fine.

Is there a way to set to 4:3?

I have my TV set to the Aspect setting and with composite cables, Wii Sports always filled up the 16:9 screen and I've felt that it looks fine.

Is there a way to set to 4:3?


Yes, I believe the path is

wii menu/wii settings/ screen/ and the rest should flow... I'm at the office and was told not to play with my Wii whilst here.... damn politics! LOL :D

I believe it's because the pixel count doesn't change. 16:9 with 480 vertical pixels would mean 853 horizontal pixels, but the Wii seems to stay locked in 4:3 resolution and you have to stretch it. Does the Wii actually call it 16:9 or just widescreen?


Hey Steve, yes the Wii does have a 16:9 option

Yes, I believe the path is

wii menu/wii settings/ screen/ and the rest should flow... I'm at the office and was told not to play with my Wii whilst here.... damn politics! LOL :D

Ha, I had forgotten I had switched that setting initially.
I'll try it and see if it looks more natural for Wii Sports.

Well when I set my Wii to widescreen 16:9, it didn't really produce a 16:9 image, it scrunched up the image horizontally in a 4:3 aspect ratio, allowing me to stretch it and make it appear as 16:9. This would tell me the pixel count didn't really change.

Well when I set my Wii to widescreen 16:9, it didn't really produce a 16:9 image, it scrunched up the image horizontally in a 4:3 aspect ratio, allowing me to stretch it and make it appear as 16:9. This would tell me the pixel count didn't really change.

My point exactly.... Which is why I set my television to 4:3 and the Wii to 4:3 also... (480p via component of course).... But Steve, make sure that your monitor settings also reflect a 16:9 aspect ratio....

The biggest thing I noticed was the overly elongated look of the "miis" during Wii Sports Bowling... All in all once I get home I'll take a few screenshot comparions and post them. (Unless someone can beat me to it)

Honestly, I am glad that I didn't take the time to "make" a set of cables like so many others have.

But Steve, make sure that your monitor settings also reflect a 16:9 aspect ratio....
It's a 1920x1080 display with 1:1 pixel mapping (no overscan) - whatever gets fed in is what gets displayed. Since the Wii's widescreen output doesn't actually change the aspect ratio on the screen - rather, it compresses the image horizontally within the 4:3 ratio so that it looks like a natural 16:9 when stretched - it seems like the games or the system is set on a fixed pixel output as opposed to switching from 640x480 (4:3) to 853x480 (16:9). I would be interested in doing more testing, but I decided to sell mine.

Assuming I wasn't overlooking something obvious, this would actually lead me to believe that the fullscreen 4:3 output would potentially have better picture quality than widescreen if using the same display technology/brand/model due to having more "real" pixels per screen area.

Sounds like some people don't understand anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic content...

Sounds like some people don't understand anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic content...

I always think I know, then when it comes into practice, all is lost.
Right now, people look stretched in certain games.

Enlighten us Slordak.

Ha, I had forgotten I had switched that setting initially.
I'll try it and see if it looks more natural for Wii Sports.
OK, there's a couple of issues here.

The first is that when using the Wii in 16:9 mode, some (if not all) TVs don't recognize it automatically. That's why you havde to manually switch your TV to 16:9 mode. You'll know everything is fine if you go to your Mii menu, and the characters have the correct proportions.

The second problem is that some games are not designed for 16:9. Rayman Raving Rabbids is one of them (it doesn't support 480p either). So when I start playing this game, I have to manually change my TVs aspect ratio (actually, my projector's) to 4:3 in order for it to look correct, although since Raving Rabbids has such silly characters in it, you might not even notice that they're "squished" if you left it at 16:9.

However, Wii Sports supports 16:9 correctly. You can tell this because the characters have the correct proportion.

-Dan

OK, there's a couple of issues here.

The first is that when using the Wii in 16:9 mode, some (if not all) TVs don't recognize it automatically. That's why you havde to manually switch your TV to 16:9 mode. You'll know everything is fine if you go to your Mii menu, and the characters have the correct proportions.

The second problem is that some games are not designed for 16:9. Rayman Raving Rabbids is one of them (it doesn't support 480p either). So when I start playing this game, I have to manually change my TVs aspect ratio (actually, my projector's) to 4:3 in order for it to look correct, although since Raving Rabbids has such silly characters in it, you might not even notice that they're "squished" if you left it at 16:9.

However, Wii Sports supports 16:9 correctly. You can tell this because the characters have the correct proportion.

-Dan

Thanks Dan. I never had a problem with Wii Sports like the OP did. I thought the characters looked fine.
I know I have both the Wii and TV set to the correct aspect ratio.

His question though made me think that perhaps they are stretched unusually as I haven't played my Wii too much lately as I'm still waiting for the component cables.

I'm surprised to hear that Raving Rabbids doesn't support 480p, I thought at least every game would support that, as well as true 16:9.

trauma center isn't 480p either. Might not even be 16:9, but I didn't notice too much stretching if any so I dunno

Thanks Dan. I never had a problem with Wii Sports like the OP did. I thought the characters looked fine.
I know I have both the Wii and TV set to the correct aspect ratio.
Yeah, I got lazy and didn't quote everyone individually. Sorry about that.
I'm surprised to hear that Raving Rabbids doesn't support 480p, I thought at least every game would support that, as well as true 16:9.
When I first heard that not all games supported this, I was actually kind of shocked. (However, I knew about Raving Rabbids before I bought it.) I really don't understand why not all games support this. I'd be curious to hear what kind of effort it is for the game developer to support this.

-Dan

Great thread, guys.

Yes, I have noticed that the Wii compresses the pixels too. I have to change my TV to 'fill' mode to stretch it so it looks right when the Wii is in 16:9 mode.

Anyway, here's my issue....

I just got the component cables today and everything seems a bit better. Zelda looks noticeably better in 480p on my 37" Westy. And, Gamecube games look pretty great in progressive. Metal Gear looks fantastic. Way better than my Cube looked via composite to my HDTV.

However, I can't get Tony Hawk Downhill Jam to display in 16:9/480p. Prior to getting the component cables I would play it in 16:9/480i and it looked fine. It was not stretched. It was correct. Now that I have the Wii set at 480p I can't get Tony Hawk to do 16:9. If I change my TV to 'fill' it looks all stretched and when I hit the wiimote's 'home' button the dialog box is all crazy and huge. This doesn't happen in Zelda, Zelda looks perfect in 480p/16:9.

Is anyone else having this issue?

I find that most games I've played are designed for widescreen... but seem stretched yes... Like I loaded up trauma center last night, and although it's completely playable it doesn't seem designed for widescreen. Zelda is on the other hand... and super monkey ball seems to be... and dragon ball z... some menus seem intended for 4:3 but the gameplay is fine.
Trauma Center does not support 480p or 16:9.

Naylia started a thread with a master list for the Wii games:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=753422

I know this has been explained many times before in various places, but once again, here is a brief explanation of the way "widescreen" works with 480i/480p signals...

Unlike 720p and 1080i signals, which are widescreen by nature, 480i and 480p signals are not inherently widescreen. To output a widescreen signal in these resolutions, source devices send out an image which uses non-square pixels. In such images, the pixels are taller than they are wide, i.e. "squeezed" horizontally. If viewed exactly "as-is", everything will appear "too skinny" or "too tall". This is known as an "anamorphic" video signal.

Since they're analog signals, they don't have a formally defined horizontal resolution, but it's enough to note that the resolution does not change, regardless of whether the source device is sending out a non-anamorphic (with roughly square pixels) or an anamorphic (with "skinny" pixels) image. The amount of resolution is fixed.

If a device always sends out an anamorphic signal when configured for 16x9 mode, then it's a trivial matter to set the widescreen TV to its anamorphic mode ("Fill" or "Full") and leave it alone. However, many devices selectively send out an anamorphic signal, i.e. change what they are sending based on source material. In some cases, the devices are able to signal at power-on that they are broadcasting anamorphic content, causing the TV to automatically switch to anamorphic mode. However, some devices, such as the Wii, selectively send out an anamorphic or non-anamorphic image without any additional signalling. As such, the user must *manually* change the TV between 4x3 and 16x9 modes if all content is to be watched in its original aspect ratio.

This leads to these combinations:

1) TV is in 4x3 mode and Wii is broadcasting non-anamorphic content. Image has correct aspect ratio, and black bars (or grey bars) on the sides (generated by the TV).
2) TV is in 16x9 mode, and Wii is broadcasting anamorphic content. Image has correct aspect ratio, and fills the entire screen.
3) TV is in 4x3 mode, and Wii is broadcasting anamorphic content. Image appears too skinny, or horizontally compressed.
4) TV is in 16x9 mode, and Wii is broadcasting non-anamorphic content. Image appears too fat, or horizontally stretched.

If Nintendo were wise, they would make the Wii always output an anamorphic signal when configured for 16x9, i.e. squeeze even the 4x3 content. This would make it painless for users to leave their TVs in 16x9 mode, but... alas.

If Nintendo were wise, they would make the Wii always output an anamorphic signal when configured for 16x9, i.e. squeeze even the 4x3 content. This would make it painless for users to leave their TVs in 16x9 mode, but... alas.

But would also result in a decrease in the resolution of the 4:3 material, as some of the available bandwidth for the signal would be used just to transmit black bars. Right?

I kind of like my 4:3 material stretched. At least I am using the entire screen I paid for. But each to their own. Someone is going to complain no matter what.

Since they're analog signals, they don't have a formally defined horizontal resolution, but it's enough to note that the resolution does not change, regardless of whether the source device is sending out a non-anamorphic (with roughly square pixels) or an anamorphic (with "skinny" pixels) image. The amount of resolution is fixed.
So the horizontal resolution is fixed yet undefined. There are no pixels in the analog output signal, yet they can either be square or skinny. Do I have that all straight now?

So the horizontal resolution is fixed yet undefined. There are no pixels in the analog output signal, yet they can either be square or skinny. Do I have that all straight now?
No, that's not correct.

These Wii games are outputting at 640x480 resolution. A 16:9 image will appeared compressed in a 4:3 window, but the pixel count remains the same. You TV can then stretch the content to fill the 16:9 screen at the expense of image quality (as pixels will then become stretched).

I kind of like my 4:3 material stretched. At least I am using the entire screen I paid for...

It's something that really should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

For example, I'm playing through Wind Waker again in 480p on my 42" plasma. I'm using "full" to stretch it, and I don't see any distortion. It's not just the cartoony nature of the cel-shaded graphics that's doing it - even the gamepad icons in the upper right look perfectly round.

Now look at Resident Evil or Resident Evil Zero. Stretching those games to 16:9 has a noticable effect.

It's disappointing to see such a lack of support for 480p / 16:9 on the Wii. Both of those shouldn't be considered features, they should be standard. Sure, these games may have been developed on something more along the lines of Gamecube hardware, but the Gamecube is perfectly capable of doing 480p / 16:9.

These Wii games are outputting at 640x480 resolution.
640x480 is a square pixel resolution (such as computer monitors), the Wii should be outputting 720x480, a non-square pixel resolution (NTSC).

There is no change in the resolution when sending out anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic signals, just like there is no difference in the resolution used to encode anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic DVDs. DVDs are encoded at 720x480, regardless of whether they are non-anamorphic (1.33x1), or anamorphic (1.77x1 or 2.35x1). Based on the math, one can see that this is neither 4x3 (640x480) nor 16x9 (852x480).

There is no change in the resolution when sending out anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic signals, just like there is no difference in the resolution used to encode anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic DVDs.
How do you know there's no change for the Wii? Do you have a reference for us? One way for the Wii to generate a widescreen picture would be to enlarge its framebuffer, so that more pixels get scanned horizontally. If that's the way it does it, there would be some increase in resolution.

You are correct that, if the Wii actually uses a wider framebuffer to generate its signal when running in "16x9 mode", there is technically additional resolution information which is present. However, due to the fact that this would require more memory and run somewhat slower, I would wonder if the Wii would even support this.

You are correct that, if the Wii actually uses a wider framebuffer to generate its signal when running in "16x9 mode", there is technically additional resolution information which is present. However, due to the fact that this would require more memory and run somewhat slower, I would wonder if the Wii would even support this.

Can we find a Nintendo developer to settle this matter? I have a VERY difficult time believing that a 2006 game console would use a chipset whose framebuffer is fixed at 640 x 480 and cannot be reconfigured to multiple different resolutions, sort of like most video display chips in the last 15+ years. Now maybe they don't have RAMDACs that will shift out 1280 x 720, but couldn't Nintendo at least have put in RAMDACs that can output 800+ pixels per scanline?

Remember that this console was meant to be "under $100" when first conceived, and that was the price point (MSRP), not the cost to manufacturer. This was prior to the inclusion of some of the extras such as the USB ports and wireless networking, but basically the core console was expected to be extremely cheap to manufacture; basically just a refreshed Gamecube.

But you're correct, much of this is speculation at the moment.

I have a VERY difficult time believing that a 2006 game console would use a chipset whose framebuffer is fixed at 640 x 480 ...
In case it helps, this datasheet (http://www.infineon.com/upload/Document/HYB18H512321AF_Rev1.73_2005-08-18.pdf) might describe the framebuffer memory (following up a reference found in the discussion of the Wii GPU here. (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=889271&postcount=2404) )

I have a feeling the Wii outputs all games at 720x480. If the game is made for a 4:3 aspect ratio display, then the Wii scales the image to 640x480. If the game is made for a 16:9 display, then the Wii scales the image to 853x480. The key is that the Wii is not rendering at 640 or 853 by 480. It is only *scaling* the 720x480 image to these resolutions so the pixels appear to be square.

On a side note, older 4:3 PC games would sometimes work with new widescreen 16:9 resolutions via hacks, etc., but the game's interface would not scale properly. This would cause the game to have a perfect aspect ratio, but not the interface (ie. circles would look like ovals, etc.). Maybe some of the Wii game Devs got lazy and didnt think about this with some of the 16:9 Wii games?

Now after we all figure out if this is true, then we can start debating on what framerates the games are running in. And then we can debate about interlaced vs. progressive! ;)

I have a feeling the Wii outputs all games at 720x480. If the game is made for a 4:3 aspect ratio display, then the Wii scales the image to 640x480. If the game is made for a 16:9 display, then the Wii scales the image to 853x480. The key is that the Wii is not rendering at 640 or 853 by 480. It is only *scaling* the 720x480 image to these resolutions so the pixels appear to be square.
What exactly would be the purpose of this? :confused: Digital hdtvs are going to upscale the image to their own native resolution.

Until I see otherwise, I'm also convinced the Wii output a fixed 640x480 :(

I have a feeling the Wii outputs all games at 720x480. If the game is made for a 4:3 aspect ratio display, then the Wii scales the image to 640x480. If the game is made for a 16:9 display, then the Wii scales the image to 853x480. The key is that the Wii is not rendering at 640 or 853 by 480. It is only *scaling* the 720x480 image to these resolutions so the pixels appear to be square.
No scaling is necessary. Video output is analog, so it's not necessary to convert, say, a 640 pixel line to an 853 pixel line, because there are no pixels there in the output to convert. There are pixels in the framebuffer, but no pixels in the analog output. Whether a pixel line from the framebuffer extends over a 16x9 screen or only the smaller 4x3 part of it is just a timing issue.

Can we find a Nintendo developer to settle this matter? I have a VERY difficult time believing that a 2006 game console would use a chipset whose framebuffer is fixed at 640 x 480 and cannot be reconfigured to multiple different resolutions, sort of like most video display chips in the last 15+ years. Now maybe they don't have RAMDACs that will shift out 1280 x 720, but couldn't Nintendo at least have put in RAMDACs that can output 800+ pixels per scanline?

There is absolutely _zero_ point in the Wii rendering any higher than what the output signal supports and what the display devices will accept. Your television cannot accept a 852x480 signals (which would be the "proper" resolution for 16:9) over component, s-video, or composite. And neither can anyone elses. Hence they won't render to such a resolution.

And even if they did - you'd never know it and you'd never see it since it would have to be downconverted in order to get to your TV.

I'm comparing my theory to NTSC standard definition DVD (480i & 480p). All discs are encoded at 720x480 (non-square pixels). If the program is fullscreen video (4:3, 30 FPS, etc.), then the DVD player scales the image to 640x480 (square pixels). If the program is widescreen film (16:9, 24 FPS, etc.), then the DVD player scales the image to 853x480 (square pixels). So, all discs are still 720x480...but the player adjusts the aspect ratio based on the source material. Adjusting the aspect ratio causes the image to scale to a lower or higher resolution.

I am not saying this is how the Wii works, but it is a good theory considering they are using the NTSC standard for 480i and 480p (at least in the USA).

There are plenty of plasma displays that are 853x480, at least one LCD by Sharp that is no longer made and tons of projectors. This resolution is known as EDTV.

Now if your TV does not support this resolution, then it (your TV) will usually scale the image a second time to fit its own native resolution.

I'm comparing my theory to NTSC standard definition DVD (480i & 480p). All discs are encoded at 720x480 (non-square pixels). If the program is fullscreen video (4:3, 30 FPS, etc.), then the DVD player scales the image to 640x480 (square pixels). If the program is widescreen film (16:9, 24 FPS, etc.), then the DVD player scales the image to 853x480 (square pixels). So, all discs are still 720x480...but the player adjusts the aspect ratio based on the source material. Adjusting the aspect ratio causes the image to scale to a lower or higher resolution.

I am not saying this is how the Wii works, but it is a good theory considering they are using the NTSC standard for 480i and 480p (at least in the USA).

There are plenty of plasma displays that are 853x480, at least one LCD by Sharp that is no longer made and tons of projectors. This resolution is known as EDTV.

Now if your TV does not support this resolution, then it (your TV) will usually scale the image a second time to fit its own native resolution.

Mike, this is false. You are incorrectly thinking in terms of pixels, when an analog signal thinks in terms of bandwidth. The DVD player cannot "scale" the signal up. The best it can do is output 720 distinct pixels on a scanline using its D to A converters. It is up to the TV to scale it to the 800+ pixels it might be capable of displaying in EDTV mode. Whether the material is 16:9 or 4:3 doesn't matter--the TV will display the entire encoded scanline on part or all of the TV's scanline and you can get squished or stretched material depending on the stretch mode of the TV (if it is 16:9 and has these modes). No scaling occurs. A 4:3 analog TV doesn't really have "square pixels" but it isn't the DVD that is downgrading the signal--the TV does that all by itself.

(The only "scaling" a DVD player will do is with lower quality outputs, and it is not scaling as is understood in the digital domain--you will get far less than 600 distinct pixels on a scanline with video RF output over coax. Of course, since even analog SVHS players show this same phenomenon due to the mathematics of the NTSC signal, nobody really refers to it as scaling.)

Mkoesel is stating, if I understand him right, that no component input on any set will accept beyond 720 distinct pixels per scanline on a 480P signal. If there is no hidden HDTV capability of the Wii (i.e. RAMDACs & framebuffers capable of generating a 720P signal), then his reply makes sense to me. I doubt there is hidden HDTV capability as it would have increased costs over a marginally cheaper EDTV video output stage, and this is a consumer device where production engineers fight viciously over even a 5 cent increase in component cost.

Well okay...my statement was correct in theory except for the TV does the aspect ratio adjustment and/or scaling then right? So again we are back to the Wii outputting 720x480 most likely and the TV making it 640x480 or 853x480 depending on the ratio and TV resolution capabilities.

Your television cannot accept a 852x480 signals (which would be the "proper" resolution for 16:9) over component, s-video, or composite. And neither can anyone elses.
:confused:

One hundred percent correct...

Enhanced-definition television, extended-definition television, or EDTV is a CEA marketing shorthand term for certain digital television (DTV) formats.

EDTV generally refers to video with picture quality beyond what is broadcastable in NTSC or PAL, but not sharp enough to be considered HDTV. A DVD player with progressive output is considered the lower end of this class, when playing a progressively encoded disc. (The maximum EDTV frame rate of 60p is not possible from a DVD.) The common implementations of EDTV are 480 or 576-line signals in progressive scan (as opposed to 50-60 interlaced fields per second, see NTSC, or PAL and SECAM). These are commonly referred to as "480p" and "576p" respectively. In comparison, a standard definition television (SDTV) signal is broadcast with interlaced frames and is commonly referred to as "480i" or "576i".

Because EDTV signals use a progressive scan, they have about 50% more vertical resolution than interlaced SDTV pictures with the same number of lines, and do not show the spatial/temporal aliasing artifacts associated with interlaced video. As a result, EDTV material gives much better results when upconverted for display on HDTV television sets. However, because of the higher level of spatial coherence within single progressive frames as compared to single interlaced fields, EDTV does not increase the amount of data bandwidth proportionately to the greater number of pixels displayed per second.

The use of EDTV instead of HDTV allows DTV stations to broadcast multiple programs at once while still improving quality over standard broadcasts.

EDTV signals are often broadcast in a 16:9 aspect ratio, with non-square pixels. The horizontal resolution is 704 or 720 pixels regardless of aspect ratio. The image is stretched for displaying to an aspect ratio of 4:3 or 16:9.

It's just how it works...there is no sending a 853x480 signal using the NTSC standard...just because a display device has a native resolution of 853x480 doesn't mean there are commercial standards for broadcasting in that resolution.

I suspect that the games where underscan is an issue are using 640x480 when originally rendered and then output using the same scaling as Zelda and others which are using 704 or 720 correctly.

Mkoesel is stating, if I understand him right, that no component input on any set will accept beyond 720 distinct pixels per scanline on a 480P signal.

That's it, yes.

If there is no hidden HDTV capability of the Wii (i.e. RAMDACs & framebuffers capable of generating a 720P signal), then his reply makes sense to me. I doubt there is hidden HDTV capability as it would have increased costs...

A an educated guess that is so reasonable, that it qualifies as truth for me. Everyone else is entitled to their own belief system. :)

Can we find a Nintendo developer to settle this matter? I have a VERY difficult time believing that a 2006 game console would use a chipset whose framebuffer is fixed at 640 x 480 and cannot be reconfigured to multiple different resolutions, sort of like most video display chips in the last 15+ years. Now maybe they don't have RAMDACs that will shift out 1280 x 720, but couldn't Nintendo at least have put in RAMDACs that can output 800+ pixels per scanline?

The Wii's frame buffer is fixed at 720X480..You get widescreen the same way you get widescreen with DVD's, which is anamorphic widescreen....If Nintendo would have put the effort or more money into the system to be able to output 1280X720, it would be considered to have support for High Def and the console in general would have been more expensive. Nintendo went with similar 480p component that was found in the early Gamecube which was later removed because few people purchased the 480p cable which cost about $75-$100 bucks at the time. One of the Launch titles for the Gamecube "Starfox Adventures" supports widescreen 16:9 and progressive scan. Nintendo had the Zelda TP for the GC version at 16:9 for about a year before it was decided to remove the support in order for the Wii version to be the mroe attractive purchase. I do believe Nintendo has made a huge mistake by not going High Def and having a more powerful system than it currently has. I know gaming is not all about the graphics but the fun of the game. However High Def support should have been a priority since all Wii games look worse on modern day HDTV's than they do on old CRT's.

I suspect that the games where underscan is an issue are using 640x480 when originally rendered and then output using the same scaling as Zelda and others which are using 704 or 720 correctly.

Intriguing possibility.

The Wii's frame buffer is fixed at 720X480.

Can you point me to your source for that information? I'd love to read all about the technical details.

Edit: LMAO, I just looked at my email and it the email notice from your post. Apparently it originally read:

"The Wii's frame buffer is fixed at 640X480."

So I guess its fair to say that you don't really know you are just guessing? :) Anyone with firm info on this is highly encouraged to post.

...Nintendo went with similar 480p component that was found in the early Gamecube which was later removed because few people purchased the 480p cable which cost about $75-$100 bucks at the time...

???

The GCN component cable was $29.99 from the Nintendo online store for most of the GCN's life, including the entire time the console was being manufactured with the digital video out port. I know - I got them from Nintendo a year or so ago.

They didn't start going for ridiculous prices on eBay until after Nintendo stopped manufacturing them.

Can you point me to your source for that information? I'd love to read all about the technical details.

Edit: LMAO, I just looked at my email and it the email notice from your post. Apparently it originally read:

"The Wii's frame buffer is fixed at 640X480."

So I guess its fair to say that you don't really know you are just guessing? :) Anyone with firm info on this is highly encouraged to post.

Yes I posted 640x480 but quickly corrected it to 720x480...It's a simple mistake..


The ntsc cube vga interlaced is 720x480i which is 240 lines shown alternately, first the 240 odd lines and then the 240 even lines, this is repeated 30 frames per second.

The ntsc cube vga progressive is 720x480p which is all 480 lines shown in one pass and this is done at 60 frames per second.

Yes I posted 640x480 but quickly corrected it to 720x480...It's a simple mistake.

No prob, sorry, it just struck me as a little funny. :)

So are you a developer?

One hundred percent correct...

It's just how it works...there is no sending a 853x480 signal using the NTSC standard...just because a display device has a native resolution of 853x480 doesn't mean there are commercial standards for broadcasting in that resolution.
This insistence on rating an analog video signal in pixels (when there are no pixels there) has had the consequence that much of the discussion in this thread makes no sense. If we could count pixels in the framebuffer, before the picture generates an analog signal, it could be 640, 720, 853, and there is no problem for the display device to accept the corresponding analog signal. How much horizontal resolution can actually be displayed is going to depend on the quality of the monitor.

This insistence on rating an analog video signal in pixels (when there are no pixels there) has had the consequence that much of the discussion in this thread makes no sense.

Greg -

Look on the back of your computer. See that VGA port? That receives analog signals and those signals do indeed contain pixel data.

I just hooked up my component cable to my 46" Sony Bravia XBR3 & for some reason jaggies are much more pronounced. The colors do look better but what gives. Link's sword looks like a staircase now. The settings on my Wii is set to 480p & widescreen on the options.

Anyone else having this problem?

This insistence on rating an analog video signal in pixels (when there are no pixels there) has had the consequence that much of the discussion in this thread makes no sense. If we could count pixels in the framebuffer, before the picture generates an analog signal, it could be 640, 720, 853, and there is no problem for the display device to accept the corresponding analog signal. How much horizontal resolution can actually be displayed is going to depend on the quality of the monitor.

You are right with regards to an NTSC signal...there is no horizontal rating of any type.

I think you guys are making this more complicated than it really should be.

The ATI GPU in the Wii most likely renders the games at 720x480 and then sets the aspect ratio to 4:3 or 16:9. Either way, this causes the pixels to be non-square UNTIL your TV receives the signal and you adjust your TV to the proper aspect ratio.

Assuming your TV is 853x480 *native*, the pixels become square if the ATI GPU renders the image at 720x480 in a 16:9 aspect ratio and your TV is set to display at 16:9. The image fills the screen and appears to have been scaled...stretched...whatever to 853x480 even though the original render is at 720x480. This is how widescreen film DVD works too if you have the proper setup!

Assuming your TV is 853x480 *native*, the pixels become square if the ATI GPU renders the image at 720x480 in a 4:3 aspect ratio and your TV is set to display at 4:3. This will cause black pillar boxes to display on the left and right side of your screen. The image appears to have been scaled...compressed...whatever to 640x480. This is how fullscreen video DVD works too if you have the proper setup!


Now you people that have 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080, etc. *native* panels experience even further scaling of the image and therefore notice worse image quality because you are not viewing the image with a 1:1 pixel for pixel mapping.

Wii was designed for a 853x480 display when running in 16:9 mode and the source is designed for 16:9

Wii was designed for a 640x480 display when running in 4:3 mode and the source is designed for 4:3

Wii was designed for a 853x480 display when running in 16:9 mode and the source is designed for 16:9

Wii was designed for a 640x480 display when running in 4:3 mode and the source is designed for 4:3

Well given that there appears to be some agreement that the Wii framebuffer only has 720 x 480 resolution, an ideal 16:9 display would have 720 horizontal resolution with rectangular pixels for 1:1 display, which I don't think anybody manufactures. Gonna have to rely on the scaler in the set. Of course, I've got an old hidef RPCRT with 7" guns, so it's really more a matter of dot pitch than "pixels" for such sets. A square pixel EDTV LCD or plasma with 853 pixels will have to rely on its scaler with the Wii for any kind of aspect ratio.

I just hooked up my component cable to my 46" Sony Bravia XBR3 & for some reason jaggies are much more pronounced. The colors do look better but what gives. Link's sword looks like a staircase now. The settings on my Wii is set to 480p & widescreen on the options.

Anyone else having this problem?

Try adjusting the sharpness on your display. Not saying it will eliminate it but it could help.

Now you people that have 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080, etc. *native* panels experience even further scaling of the image and therefore notice worse image quality because you are not viewing the image with a 1:1 pixel for pixel mapping.

The resolution of the TV is definitely not the most important factor for image quality, so I will have to disagree here.

Wii was designed for a...

The Wii was designed for any display. The display that produces the best picture will be the one with the best scaler, the best color reproduction, and the best black levels.

Well given that there appears to be some agreement that the Wii framebuffer only has 720 x 480 resolution...
There is nothing preventy the Wii from rendering at higher resolutions.
The resolution of the TV is definitely not the most important factor for image quality, so I will have to disagree here.
And good upscaling can make games from the Wii look better just as good upscaling can imporve the image quality of a DVD.

There is nothing preventy the Wii from rendering at higher resolutions.

You might be right. Superman claims its 720x480, but didn't cite a source so we can hardly take it as fact (although I'm not saying he's wrong or lying). Do you have a source to back up your claim, by any chance?

(not that this particular point is really that important to begin with, given that the Wii limited to 480i/p output anyway)

I was about to start a new thread, then I found this one, so I'll try reviving it since it is very similar to what I'm about to ask.

Aside from all the concerns about native resolutions and aspect ratios, I accept what the Wii is and how it works, save for one concern: widescreen recognition.

First, I have a Sony 34XBR960 display. I have a progressive scan Sony DVD player, and it signals the TV to change aspect ratios automatically. Even within the same DVD, it makes the TV change modes from widescreen to standard and back again.

I have several component video sources connected with a switcher, so this is ideal. I leave the TV set to pillarbox mode, and when something widescreen starts, the TV changes modes.

The Wii continues an old problem, however, that I hoped would be resolved when upgrading from a GameCube. Even though it supports widescreen aspect ratios, it doesn't seem to be able to tell the TV to switch modes.

What exactly is this signal to the TV, and why would the Wii lack it? I end up having to locate my TV remote and changing modes every time I use the Wii.

Any thoughts?

What exactly is this signal to the TV, and why would the Wii lack it?

The "widescreen flag" (or anamorphic or whatever you want to call it) is a part of the DVD spec, but there's no such spec for video games. The original Xbox had problems with flagging to TVs in 480i or p mode (I forget which, I think it was p) which required operator assistance to switch between 4:3 and 16:9 on the TV.

One would think Nintendo would have recognized this situation and designed the console for this feature via component, but alas... users of 16:9 TVs either need the set's remote handy to switch between standard and widescreen, or keep it one or the other and get used to it. :(

That's what I was afraid of.

Hopefully there will be a firmware update that fixes it.

A fix for the audio distortion would be nice, too...

http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=wii_tech&message.id=37039

Do the screen settings affect Gamecube games on the Wii as well?

Do the screen settings affect Gamecube games on the Wii as well?

the only way i know that it affect GC games is if you have 480p enabled, then compatible GC games will prompt you for 480p mode. if you do not set your wii to 480p, i do not think the GC games will be able to detect your component cable.